Risk Society and School

Educational Policy

‘A very valuable lens for understanding how various powerful forces in society
can too often result in education policy being irrational and poorly planned.
This is an essential read for school principals, teachers, members of school
communities and politicians everywhere who are committed to democracy.’
– Professor Tom O’Donoghue, Graduate School of
Education, The University of Western Australia

Risk Society and School Educational Policy explores the impact of risk society
on policy in the US, UK and Australia through both practical and theoretical
perspectives. The book develops an in-depth understanding of risk society
itself, and guides the reader in applying this knowledge to the problem of how
this impacts policy and practice in school education.
Drawing on work by Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, Rodwell explores
the development of risk society as a field of interest, discussing its history,
contemporary significance and links with neoliberalism, school education, and
both mainstream and social media. He also examines its impact on government
policies and the practical implications of how this impacts the educational
experiences of children around the globe today.
A book for policy professionals, researchers, academics and postgraduate
students interested in Education Studies, Theory and Policy, and International
and Comparative Education, Risk Society and School Educational Policy is the first
international academic monograph published in the field.

Grant Rodwell is an Adjunct Research Academic at the School of Education

at the University of Tasmania, Australia.
Routledge Research in Education Policy and Politics

The Routledge Research in Education Policy and Politics series aims to

enhance our understanding of key challenges and facilitate ongoing academic
debate within the influential and growing field of Education Policy and Politics.

Books in the series include:

Using Shakespeare’s Plays to Explore Education Policy Today
Neoliberalism Through the Lens of Renaissance Humanism
Sophie Ward

Middle Class School Choice in Urban Spaces

The Economics of Public Schooling and Globalised Education Reform
Emma E. Rowe

Education and the Production of Space

Political Pedagogy, Geography and Urban Revolution
Derek R. Ford

Pedagogy in Poverty
Twenty Years of Curriculum Reform in South Africa
Ursula Hoadley

The PISA Effect on Global Educational Governance

Louis Volante

Academies and Free Schools in England

A History and Philosophy of The Gove Act
Adrian Hilton

Risk Society and School Educational Policy

Grant Rodwell

For more information about this series, please visit: [Link]/

Routledge-Research-in-Education-Policy-and-Politics/book-series/RREPP
Risk Society and School
Educational Policy

Grant Rodwell
First edition published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Grant Rodwell
The right of Grant Rodwell to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Rodwell, Grant, author.
Title: Risk society and school educational policy / Grant Rodwell.
Description: First edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2018. |
Series: Routledge research in education policy and politics |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018024100 | ISBN 9780367000448 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780429444036 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Education and state—United States. | Education and state—
Great Britain. | Education and state—Australia. | Risk perception—
United States. | Risk perception—Great Britain. | Risk perception—
Australia. | Risk-taking (Psychology) | Risk—Sociological aspects.
Classification: LCC LC89 .R64 2018 | DDC 379—dc23
LC record available at [Link]
ISBN: 978-0-367-00044-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-44403-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to my mother, Hilary, who left
me with many cherished and important values, not least
of which was a passion for research and writing. This
book is also dedicated to my wife, Julie, our son, Carl,
and daughter, Jahna, who augment our lives in untold
ways, and now sustained with grandchildren, Caleb,
April, James and Macy.
Contents

Acknowledgements viii
List of acronyms and abbreviations ix
Preface xi

Introduction 1

1 The looming presence of risk society 18

2 Risk society theory arrives 36

3 Young people and families living in risk society 56

4 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, school education,

mainstream media and social media 88

5 National governments respond 115

6 National standardised testing and reporting 138

7 National curricular 156

8 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 178

9 Contexts: bringing it together 198

Index 207
Acknowledgements

My thanks are due to the School of Education, University of Tasmania, in

particular, Emeritus Professor John Williamson, the Dean, Associate Professor
Karen Swabey, and a team of dedicated and obliging library staff at the Newn-
ham Campus.
The seeds of this book lay with discussions with many PhD students and
colleagues at the University of Adelaide and later when I was as an adjunct at
the University of Tasmania – much-valued occasions.
Acronyms and abbreviations

ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
ACER Australian Council for Educational Research
ACGR adjusted cohort graduation rate
ACH Australian Curriculum: History
ADL Anti-Defamation League
AFL Australian Football League
AHISA Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia
AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
AMA American Medical Association
ANAO Australian National Audits Office
APS Australian Psychological Society
ATRA Australasian Teacher Regulatory Authorities
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress
BBV blood-borne viruses
BER Building the Education Revolution
CCTV closed-circuit television
DOCS Department of Community Services
EPA Environment Protection Authority
ESL English as a Second Language
EU European Union
FGM female genital mutilation
GFC global financial crisis
GM genetically modified
IB International Baccalaureate
ICT information and communication technologies
ISIS State of Iraq and al-Sham
LEA local education authority
MCEETYA Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs
MP Member of Parliament
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NAPLAN National Assessment Plan: Literacy and Numeracy
x Acronyms and abbreviations
NCMP National Child Measurement Program
NFER National Foundation for Educational Research
NFP not-for-profit
NGSS Next Generation Science Standards
NPM new public management
NUT National Union of Teachers
OBE Outcome-based Education
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Ofsted Office for Standards in Education
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA Program for International Student Assessment
RSI repetitive strain injury
STI sexually transmitted infection
TEMAG Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group
TES Times Educational Supplement
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
VET vocational education and training
WHO World Health Organization
Preface

This book evolved from my previous book published by Routledge – Moral

Panics and School Educational Policy (2017) – with this present volume coming as
a companion volume. Collectively, they portray a story of a multitude of forces
impacting school education in the US, UK and Australia. And not always are
these rational and planned responses, often associated with highly politicised
public discourse and a partisan media.
While conceptualising, researching and writing on how moral panics impact
school education, and striving to link risk society theory and the history of
moral panics impacting school education in Australia, the UK and the US, I
became aware there was simply too much detail to write into that book: what
was needed was a companion volume to Moral Panics and School Educational
Policy, and one that more fully explores the impact of risk society thinking on
school educational policy.
It is hoped that this title will have special appeal to school principals, teach-
ers, older students, members of school communities and politicians who may
be concerned by the direction school educational policy is taking, often as a
response to forces which have clandestine axes to grind.
Introduction

Russell Ward [1952] Man makes history. Sydney. Shakespeare

Head Press (inside page)
Nothing signified more aptly the highly gendered, colonialist, modernist
and racist past of Australian school education than Ward’s 1952 textbook
for lower-secondary history students. It embraced a worldview, a zeitgeist,
framed in an unquestioning belief in progress and science, and “man’s”
role in it. When and how would it all end – this relentless modernising
of Western societies?
When modernisation reaches a certain stage, it radicalises itself. It begins to
transform, for a second time, not only the key institutions, but also the very prin-
ciples of society. But this time the principles and institutions being transformed are
those of modern society [Beck, Bonss & Lau: 2003, 1].
What was it that followed Ward’s 1952 depiction of “progress” and this
relentless modernising of Western societies?
2 Introduction
There is at least a 40-year history of risk-society-provoked anxieties impacting
on policy in American, Australian and British school education. Of course, in
the US, Ward’s 1952 depiction of the perceived comparison of Western “prog-
ress”, and Indigenous cultures was alike, with First Nations American suffering
similarly. By the 1970s the notions and values expressed in the Ward [1952]
school education textbook shown above would quickly vanish into the ethers,
and this would be accompanied by a severe questioning of the values under-
pinning Western “progress”. The highly influential Russell Ward (1914–1995)
was the great apostle of the Australian Legend: “on completing his schooling at
Prince Alfred College, Adelaide, he was, in the words of his autobiography, ‘as
arrant a conservative, as loyal a Briton and as nasty a snob as ever left any great
public school in Australia’”. Ward “remained always impeccably bourgeois in
manners and appearance. The apostle of the Australian Legend looked like an
English army officer” [Hirst: n.d., n.p.]. With risk society theory unashamedly
passing over his head, he continued to write during the 1980s and 1990s with
little regard for the worth of Australia’s Indigenous culture, or the contribution
of Indigenous people to the “Australian Legend”, a subject for which he had
made his name.
Beginning sometime during the 1970s, school education responded in
manifold ways to the imperatives of risk society thinking, sometimes initi-
ated by governments, other times by professionals and school communities.
The 40-year or so history of the pressures brought onto school education by
risk society, as illustrated by Beck, Bonss and Lau [2003, 1] in the box above
has been relentless, manifesting themselves in such school education programs
as history, mathematics, science education, sexuality education and climate
change education, in addition to a relentless drive towards national standardised
assessment, and other forms of governmental interventions. Influenced by risk
society imperatives, by the second decade of the 21st century, as a section of
Chapter 7 of this present study demonstrates, for example, the science curricu-
lum had undergone massive changes. The criterion for the selection of school
educational topics deemed to be influenced by risk society is simple – those
which have attracted the most media attention.
A study of the impact of risk society on school educational policy, interna-
tionally, has been neglected, no less through an emphasis on historical analysis.
Strikingly in the words of Boudia and Jas [2007, 317], “given that fundamental
societal evolutions as well as change and disruption over the long term are con-
stantly being examined, recourse to history would seem only natural”. More-
over, “reflecting a type of analysis common in the social sciences”, Boudia and
Jas [2007, 317] contend: “The temporality constructed by Beck characterizes
and differentiates between two successive periods. The first is that of an indus-
trial society: a class society corresponds to a ‘primary modernization’ according
to Beck’s own terminology”. This is admirably displayed in the 1952 Ward
graphic positioned at the beginning of this Introduction.
Of course, what the 1952 Ward graphic does not show is the phase of reflexive
modernity that Beck and others argue follows this “primary modernization”.
 Introduction 3
Boudia and Jas [2007, 317] argued: “To back up this historical analysis of a
break created by risk society, Beck cites a large number of works of economic
and social history in German from the 1970s and 1980s and underlines the
importance of the sciences in the transformations he analyses”. But for these
researchers, on “‘scientific/technical’ questions, Beck’s references are rather
poor, and since this seminal work, historical research is no longer a resource
for the many sociologists and political scientists that have come in his wake and
continued to brandish the concept of ‘risk society’”.
“The explanation may lie”, according to Boudia and Jas [2007, 317]:

in the small number of historical works that place the idea of risk at the
center of their analysis. Moreover, when historical studies do actually deal
with situations of danger or risk, they often lack visibility given the dif-
ficulty historians have in promoting their work outside narrow specialist
circles. Furthermore, the ability of disciplines like sociology or political
science to respond to social demands and to take part in forms of political
action enables the fruits of their research to circulate far more easily, to
influence long arbitration processes, and to come to the attention of oth-
ers, thus helping them to fashion the present and the future and to gain a
higher public profile.

This present study, inter alia, seeks to address these concerns expressed by
Boudia and Jas [2007], and it first needs to recognise profound power shifts in
educational policy experienced in the nations under study in this book.
The strengthening of centralist decision-making over school education
policy – centripetal forces over centrifugal forces – has been a marked feature
of risk society thinking, beginning in US and UK, and in Australia with the
Commonwealth takeover of much of school education policy.
At some time or other during the late 1970s, Western nations began under-
going profound changes. Commonly held anxieties concerning the future
environmental, economic, social, political and educational directions began to
mount amongst many sections of society, and soon this would impact school
education in Western countries. In Australia as demonstrated by the page from
Ward [1952], at least, the notions of colonialism, gendered roles, Aboriginality
and an absolute belief in progress and the methods and outcomes of science
and technology, with the onset of risk society thinking would be thrown on
their respective heads. And there was much more. School education would be
completely refocussed, as would past “scientific” Western knowledge, soon to
challenge existing school educational science curricular.
A glaring example of reflexive modernisation, relative to the 1952 Ward
graphic, and particularly in respect to the first section of the graphic depict-
ing Aboriginal “knowledge”, came with a recent discovery on lungtalanana/
Clark Island in Bass Strait, on Tasmania’s north-east tip. Here it was discovered
Tasmanian Indigenous people had been using fire control management as far
back as 50,000 years. In a country ravaged by summer fire storms, fire ecologist
4 Introduction
David Bowman and Australian National University natural history professor
Simon Haberle called for a complete rethink on government policies of fire
management, and to investigate how Indigenous people had cared for the envi-
ronment to the point of colonialisation [Shine: 2017], as so graphically and
derogatively illustrated in the 1952 Ward graphic.
At this point in our study we should be clear about exactly what “reflexive
modernity” means. Reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause
and effect, an act of self-reference where examination or action “bends back
on”, refers to and affects the entity instigating the action or examination. Of
course, readers will recognise when authors such as Ward [1952] in eulogis-
ing modernity, the power of modern technology over Australian Indigenous
people and their 50,000 year-old culture, in fact was a part of a process – and
possibly unbeknown to Ward – which would bring into question the value of
this modernity [Beck, Giddens, & Lash: 1994].
Beck defined the term “reflexive modernization”, having it refer to the way
in which advanced modernity “becomes its own theme”, in the sense that
“questions of the development and employment of technologies (in the realms
of nature, society and the personality)” and at the same time “is being eclipsed
by questions of the political and economic ‘management’ of the risks of actually
or potentially utilized technologies – discovering, administering, acknowledg-
ing, avoiding, or concealing such hazards in respect to specially defined hori-
zons of relevance” [Scott & Marshal: 2005, 638]. A plethora of socio-political
movements since the advent of risk society in the 1970s has shown this to be
the case – witness the green movement and its politics, and how in school edu-
cation this is reflected in the changing nature of the curriculum.
Of course, globalism and the internationalising of education – all a part of
the risk society thesis – relentlessly compelled a re-purposing of school edu-
cation. This was undertaken with the dual drive of neoliberalism or as it has
sometimes been termed, economic rationalism. Here, we explore the nature of
these impacts in three countries: the UK, US and Australia.
While certainly, apart from the developing movement towards compensa-
tory education, during the early 1970s there was nothing to suggest school
education was about to experience any significant changes, change was afoot in
broader society which would soon impact on school education policy. Because
of the Cold War and the space race, a massive increased national spending on
school education was under way, especially in the science curriculum. Signifi-
cantly, one of the early impacts of risk society theory came later in the decade
in the emerging environmental movement. But with another decade down
history’s path, a vast host of other impacts became evident, both positively and
negatively. School education would be forever changed.
In their ground-breaking collection of essays on education and the risk soci-
ety Bialostok and Whitman [2012, 1] begin by arguing that through “analyzing
risk through multiple perspectives on risk itself and on education is crucial for
a rich elucidation on the enactment of risk” (emphasis in original). This present
study shares these weighty objectives with Bialostok and Whitman [2012].
 Introduction 5
Globalism: the end of nations?
What is globalism? It depends on whom you ask:

Globalism is often used as a synonym for globalization, the system of global

economic interconnection that has been critiqued for decades by liberal
groups like labor unions, environmental organizations and opponents of
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But for the far
right, the term encapsulates a conspiratorial worldview based on racism,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism, according to Mark Pitcavage, a researcher
at the Anti-Defamation League.
[Stack: 2016, n.p.]

Clearly, when it comes to analysing the impact of globalism on school educa-

tional policy, and the relationship to risk society theory, the view that one holds
on what constitutes globalism will colour the response to many questions.
Contemporaneous to the rise of neoliberalism, Theodore Levitt in 1985
coined the term “globalisation” to describe changes in global economies. The
term was applied quickly to a diverse range of other enquiries including school
education [Spring: 2015, 3–4].
Globalism? The Cold War? What were the perceived effects of globalism
over a quarter of a century ago when the Cold War mentality dominated inter-
national affairs? At a conference of leading CEOs held in Stuttgart back in
1990, Kenichi Ohmae predicted that the “global logic unleased by . . . [global-
ism] would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the time, no one else in
the room believed me” [Ohmae: 1996, viii]. Ohmae [1996, viii] predicted the
redrawing of international borders. Indeed, for him, “The forces now at work
have raised troubling questions about the relevance – and effectiveness – of
nation states as meaningful aggregates in terms of which to think about, much
less manage economic activity”.
So, writing in 1996, six years after making his bold prediction, Ohmae [1996]
may well have been quietly confident of his prediction. The Soviet Union had
been dissolved on 26 December 1991, and consequently the US, the European
Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) appeared to
dominate. But that was over 25 years ago, and much has changed since then.
With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU with its Brexit vote, the EU is under
challenge; only months into his office, President Donald Trump signalled he
wants drastic changes with the US relationship with NATO; and there has
been a resurgent Russia Federation under President Vladimir Putin with all the
apparent trimmings of the old Tsarist Imperial Russia [Gessen: 2017]. Addi-
tionally, there have been severe allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US
presidential elections. (See, e.g., on NATO/US relations, Ferdinando: 2016).
Now, responding to globalist and risk society imperatives, as nations such as
the UK, the US and Australia strive to strengthen their economies and societ-
ies, national school educational initiatives play a vital role in national border
6 Introduction
security and nation-building. For example, the Australian Government has
enacted policies such as the National Assessment Plan: Literacy and Numer-
acy (NAPLAN), MySchool, Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority
(ACARA) and Australian Institute for Teaching and School (AITSL).
It is important to remember other Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) countries had enacted similar programs. The Aus-
tralian enactment, however, for these four organisations signifies the continu-
ing impact of economic rationalism and globalisation on Australian school
education. In the words of Zajda [2015, 105] “the impact of globalisation on
educational policy has become a strategically significant issue, for it expresses
one of the most ubiquitous, yet poorly understood phenomena of modernity”.
That being so, an examination of the links between globalisation and risk soci-
ety theory adds much to our understanding of both globalisation and risk
society theory, and their impact on the emerging national influences on school
education.
Before we proceed, however, following research by Henderson [2015,
635], basing her work on Ohmae [2000] and Rosenberg [2000], we should
acknowledge that the term “globalisation” “is contested and employed in mul-
tiple contexts to suggest both positive and negative flows of power, culture and
commerce”. Moreover, as Henderson [2015, 635] wrote, following research by
Levin [2001], we should record the multidimensional nature of globalisation,
“noting that whilst globalisation suggests a condition in which the world can
be viewed as a single place, it also invokes a process that links localities separated
by great distances and intensifies relationships between them”. In Levin’s words
[2001, 8, cited in Henderson: 2015, 635], “globalisation is also implicitly con-
nected to international economies, as in the concept of a world economy; and
to international relations or politics, as in the concept of global politics; and to
culture, as in the concept of global culture”.

Risks in school education

Risk has long been a major consideration in school education, as it has in
other professions such as social welfare [Bunton et al.: 2004; Webb: 2006].
This applies to risks associated with possible failure in basic school subjects, for
most families a risk bringing enormous family anxieties [Fielding-Barnsley &
Purdie: 2003]. In schools and colleges, teachers and administrators have long
prepared risk assessments according to school and educational authority poli-
cies for specific learning experiences, such as excursions. Specialist teachers
such as physical education, outdoor education teachers and science teachers,
according to school and educational authority policies, have been required
continually to maintain their skills and knowledge in risk assessment and man-
agement. These are examples of risk at micro- and macro-levels, all with their
associated anxieties.
Obviously, what is a risk for somebody may not be such for others. Risk
itself is at once a slippery, contestable and ambiguous concept, making it very
 Introduction 7
difficult to define. Depending on the situational context, field of application
and adopted perspective, or ideology of the observer, there are numerous defi-
nitions. “Risk is often normatively defined in probabilistic and mathematical
terms as it relates to the expected losses which can be caused by a risky event
and to the probability of this event happening” [Webb: 2006, n.p.]. That is
risk defined, and more on that in Chapter 2. Risk society theory, on the other
hand, may be even more slippery, and also is treated more fully along with risk
theory in that chapter.

Risk society theory and school education

Readers should note reference to risk society theory and school education
often is difficult to uncover in the research literature: for example, in an other-
wise wide-ranging study such as Zajda’s [2015] Second international handbook on
globalisation, education and policy research one would expect to find some refer-
ence to risk society theory, but alas, no. Here there is not one entry in this vol-
ume with 50 contributing researchers/authors. The publication of Bialostok,
Whitman and Bradley’s [2014] Education and the risk society: Theories, discourse
and risk identities in education contexts, however, marked an important step in
educational research concerning risk society theory and school education – the
first publication of a book on the topic, albeit an edited volume of papers. But
of particular relevance for this present book is Moran’s [2015] chapter in the
volume dealing with the history of risk society theory and the re-emergence of
scientific management in American school education. The chapter is enlight-
ening, not only because of its inherent quality, but also because of what a
researched history demonstrates is possible for an aspect of risk society theory
and school education – showing the history of school education administra-
tion, how it plateaued off for some decades, and then with the impact of risk
society imperatives it is provided with new life sometime during the 1980s
with the growing impact of economic rationalism and neoliberalism on school
education. This aspect of risk society thinking is but one fascinating example of
how this paradigm impacts school education, alongside of the history of wider
social-political-economic factors. And throughout school education, there are
numerous similar examples: witness the turbulent and contested history of cli-
mate change education, beginning with environmental education during the
1970s down to today’s political dramas and imbroglios.
A dedicated scholarly monograph on the topic of risk society theory and
school education provides students and researchers with fresh insights into the
history of school education and risk society theory is urgently needed. This
would be particularly so with a volume bringing into focus as this present book
does, in a comparative sense, the US, Australia and the UK. The veracity of
this assertion, for example, is evidenced also in the history of environmentalism
and the green movement beginning in the 1970s, as a response to risk society
thinking, and the way in which this has impacted on school education in regard
to the new environmental education. This is demonstrated in much greater
8 Introduction
detail in Chapter 2, and in Chapter 3, detailing the way in which risk society
thinking responded once more with various people and groups pushing for
school educational responses to global climate change.
Although not an historical treatment, nor advancing any particular paradigm
of comparative education, Aspinall’s [2014] research paper on the application
of risk society theory to the study of education systems in Europe, America
and Asia provided insights into what such a comparative study might offer. This
research proposed: the application of this concept can be classified into the fol-
lowing five categories:

1 “Risk as a positive concept in education;

2 Risk as a negative concept in education;
3 Risk, individualization and education;
4 Risk, globalization and education; and
5 Risk, neoliberalism and education.”
[Aspinall: 2014, 1]

Developed through historical research, these categories will prove to be perti-

nent to this book, and will be referred to again in Chapter 3.
At the time of writing this book, there has been no dedicated scholarly
monograph on the history opr comparative analysis of risk society impacting on
school education in the US, Australia and the UK. This present publication is
a response to these imperatives, essentially moving from what has in the past
been a sociological-dominated site for research, to research featuring historical
analysis.

Rethinking modernity
German sociologist Ulrich Beck’s and British sociologists Anthony Giddens’
approach to the risk society theory is firmly from the perspective of modernity:
“A shorthand term for modern society or industrial civilization . . . moder-
nity is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a
society . . . which unlike any preceding culture lives in the future rather than
the past” [Giddens: 1999, 94]. Moreover, it is immediate in its international
impacts. Indeed, while “no one fully understands”, for Giddens [1999] and
others, globalism is having a powerful effect on the emerging risk society of the
21st century, and feeding dramatically into a range of school education policy
developments. Henceforth, the driving standards for school education policies
would be dominated by preoccupations concerning the future, the manner in
which the nation may confront the future with minimum risk to itself, and
this would entail severe considerations of the nation’s future relationships with
other nations [Kovacević & Kovacević: 2017].
The disintegration of the Soviet Bloc brought new imperatives to globalisa-
tion in respect to politics and economics, which, of course in turn impacted
on national school education priorities. “The process of economy globalization
 Introduction 9
is also the process of global industrial restructuring and readjustment”, wrote
Shangquan [2000, 3]. Indeed, “with the development of science and tech-
nology and increase of income level, industrial structures of all the countries
have been also undergoing readjustment and upgrading” [Shangquan: 2000, 3].
Researchers point to how in recent years, developed countries in the West are
gradually entering the era of knowledge economy and have started to shift to
developing countries many labour-intensive industries of weak international
competitiveness: witness the restructuring of the US and UK automotive
industries, and in fact in Australia, the closing down altogether of the motor
vehicle construction industry. These developments have projected themselves
as major planks in national politics, as witnessed in the 2016 US presidential
campaigns, where it was alleged the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, had
enjoyed large political gains with promises on halting the trend of China manu-
facturing American motor vehicles and selling them back to the US [Dunne:
2016; Sidahamed: 2016].
This process of cross-country economic shift “is pushing forward an in-
depth development of economic globalization”, argued [Shangquan: 2000] six-
teen years ago. On the other hand, as in Australia and Detroit, there has existed
a surplus of productivity since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, and in the UK
by 2011, there were only four British-owned car companies – Bristol, Morgan,
Caterham and McLaren, with the most famous names from Aston Martin to
Bentley now foreign-owned [Hanlon: 2011].
Due to these massive globalist forces, economic globalisation has intensi-
fied the competition of international markets. In order to raise their positions
and improve their competitiveness at the international market, US, UK and
Australian domestic enterprises and those from other countries have resorted
to manifold mergers and acquisitions, “which has resulted in tides of industrial
restructuring. . . . All of these restructuring activities have exerted far-reaching
international influence on industrial competition pattern” [Shangquan: 2000].
This has influenced Bhambra’s [2007, 145] thinking, arguing in our rethink-
ing of modernity, we need not only break from colonialist pasts, but also to
break from Eurocentricism. This embodies “addressing the construction of
modern Europe . . . is necessary for an adequate engagement with the history,
and present, of the world”. But Bhambra [2007] wrote that nine years before
Brexit, and much has – and will continue to change – since then. Risk society
has assumed fresh imperatives, and certainly renewed relationships with the UK
and the EU.

Taking on board the central notion of risk society theory

This book begins by taking on board the central notion of risk society theory:
“The educated person incorporates reflexive knowledge of the conditions and
prospects of modernity, and in this way becomes an agent of reflexive mod-
ernization” [Beck: 1992/2007, 93–94]. Giddens, Beck and Lash launched the
notion of reflexive modernisation, or reflexive modernity in order to reassess
10 Introduction
sociology as a science of the present, providing a counterbalance to the post-
modernist paradigm offering a re-constructive view alongside deconstruction.
The concept built upon previous notions such as post-industrial society and
post-material society, but stressing how in reflexive modernisation, modernity
directs its attention to the process of modernisation itself. In Beck, Bonss and
Lau’s [2003, 1] words, “when modernization reaches a certain stage, it radical-
izes itself. It begins to transform, for a second time, not only the key institu-
tions, but also the very principles of society. But this time the principles and
institutions being transformed are those of modern society”.
This present book, however, in part seeks to depart in a small way from
sociological theory, and adopt in part an historical perspective, examining how
reflexive modernisation has impacted school education in the US, Australia
and the UK.

Globalism, mainstream media and social media

In both its mainstream and social forms, the media is everything to risk soci-
ety theory. Consider 2016 Republican presidential aspirant Donald Trump,
through his now infamous Tweets, feeding the 24-hour media cycle with
material on, say US Islamic migration.
Even by 1998, researchers were studying how dispersed across Beck’s writ-
ings is a view of the mainstream mass media theoretically positioned as playing
a crucial role in processes of risk revelation, social contestation surrounding
assessments and knowledge of risks, and the processes of social challenge to risk
society theory. Cottle [1998] provided a critical elucidation of Beck’s theories
of mass media and risk society theory. For Cottle [1998], Beck’s ideas on the
relationship between mass media and risk society provided an uneven, under-
developed and often contradictory positioning on the mass media. But more
on that in Chapter 4 of this book.
Moreover, Cottle [1998] published his research nearly 20 years ago, before
the wholesale onset of social media, a topic offering fascinating contributions
to risk society theory, and the way it connects with school education. At the
same time, to paraphrase Beck’s words, providing fresh demands and chal-
lenges in incorporating reflexive knowledge of the conditions and prospects of
modernity, and becoming an agent of reflexive modernity [Beck: 1992/2007,
93–94], an aspect of risk society theory and school education is examined in
greater depth in Chapter 2.

A plethora of risk society-based assessment policies,

educational programs and anxieties in school education
Beginning with environmental education – discussed in the following chapter –
there has been a multitude of risk society responses impacting on school educa-
tion in the three countries under consideration in this book. These other effects
include projecting the nation’s progress and standards in school education,
 Introduction 11
particularly in English, reading, science and mathematics, through NAPLAN
assessment in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in Australia; in England, national curriculum
assessments embody a series of educational assessments, colloquially known as
SATs, used to assess the attainment of children attending maintained schools.
They comprise a mixture of teacher-led and test-based assessment depend-
ing on the age of the pupils in Years 2 and 6; while in the US, the principal
national assessment centres on the National Assessment of Educational Prog-
ress (NAEP). The various state school educational authorities also conduct a
variety of standardised assessment. Internationally, Australia, the US and the
UK participate in Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Given the
risk society imperatives, research into the veracity of these various benchmarks
provokes an enormous amount professional and academic discourse, and these
will be addressed in the following chapters. Over all of this, looms large various
policies and practices of the OECD.
Other than environmental education, which was attended to earlier by edu-
cational authorities, and is described in great detail in the following chapter,
anxieties and challenges in school education expressed by risk society theory
also require being brought under control, and often stretch across the various
countries. These include, sexuality education, physical and obesity education,
history and geography education, science and mathematics education, curtail-
ing racism and Islamophobia in schools and communities. Overriding these
concerns have been the establishment of programs to ensure quality teacher
preparation in universities, and measures ensuring quantifiable standards and
benchmarks in maintaining teaching and leadership standards.
All of the above have necessitated increased control by national governments
over school education, and this in itself poses particular challenges for federal-
ism in the US and Australia. Singapore provides an essential example of the
way in which the nation state has responded to risk society imperatives and
“strengthened” its school education as a palliative measure to offset national
anxieties, and internationally strengthen its economy, culture and society. In
our study of risk society impacting school education in Australia, the US and
the UK, Singapore delivers a convenient point of reference.

The Singaporean example

“Scholars working in sociology, migration, architecture, the arts, political
economy, cultural studies, developmental studies or geography and urban plan-
ning have already generated a copious amount of publications on the concept
of ‘global cities’” [Heng: 2015, 4]. And we might add to that list school edu-
cational policy studies. But how is a global city defined? Using Singapore as
a focal example, Heng [2015, 19], following on from the research by Hack
and Margolin [2010, 29] writes: “A global city ‘acts as a – and preferably
the – major nodal point between a region and other parts of the world, attract-
ing disproportionate amounts of foreign trade and personnel, international
12 Introduction
services and expertise coming to the area’” [Heng: 2015, 4]. This is “new
phase” globalism.
Already in this book I have used repeatedly the word “globalism”, and par-
tially interrogated its meaning. Following Tatto’s [2007, 232] lead, I should
attempt again to return to this topic. Tatto [2007] conceived of globalism in the
same terms as Gibson-Graham [1996, 121]: “A set of processes by which the
world is rapidly being integrated into one economic space via increased inter-
national trade, the internationalization of production and financial markets,
the internationalization of a commodity culture promoted by an increasingly
networked global telecommunications system”.
Moreover, other researchers insisted on considering the highly nuanced
nature of globalism. It is multifaceted, pushing “the economy toward favouring
free trade, privatization, foreign investment and liberalized trade” [Stomquist &
Monkman: 2000, 4]. Critically relevant for school educational policy, is the
argument that socially it encourages new consumption patterns and lifestyles.
“Culturally, the growing intensification of communication processes challenges
traditions and national identities; and politically, it has made more acceptable
ideas such as pluralism, multiparty democracy, free elections, and the call for
human rights” [Stomquist & Monkman: 2000, 4]. Associated developments in
school education, Stomquist and Monkman [2000, 5] show there is an accom-
panying strong trend towards privatisation and the culture of entrepreneur-
ship. Stomquist and Monkman [2000] argue these trends tend to give more
importance to knowledge fields connected to the market such as mathematics
and science; pedagogies oriented towards problem-solving; and a heightened
importance to issues of efficiency (e.g., the growing importance to improving
performance in mathematics and reading tests). We might add an additional
accompanying impact on school education is the development of entrepre-
neurship in the curriculum. Stomquist and Monkman [2000] also note the
increasing importance the global market has had several effects on formal
schooling. In particular for teachers: “Teachers’ autonomy, independence, and
control over their work is being reduced while workplace knowledge and con-
trol find their way increasingly in the hands of administrators” [Stomquist &
Monkman: 2000, 14]. This is a view of the changing classroom supported by
research by Bialostock and Kamberelis [2014] who state the teacher does not
so much consciously determine the children’s capitalist subjectivities, but rather
elicits, fosters and fundamentally, promotes them.
Moreover, for teachers there has been a diminishment of power, entailed in
strategies by school educational authorities to re-scale relationships between
the global, national and local that shift control and power from the lower to
higher levels [Robertson” 2003, cited in Stomquist & Monkman: 2000, 14].
Any complete contemporary macro-analysis of education policy readily
illustrates both the processes and impacts of globalisation. There is a plethora
of research literature on the topic. “Yet, while there is a vast literature on glo-
balisation, there are also many ways of defining globalisation, identifying when
 Introduction 13
it began, differences with an earlier phase of internationalism, what elements
within globalisation are significant and for which sectors of social activity and
where globalisation is likely to lead” [Gopinathan: 2007, 53].
For Gopinathan [2007, 53], the small but economically and socially strong
city-state of Singapore provides a cogent example of how globalisation impacts
the state and education policy. He points to the research literature which direct
attention to the high rates of economic growth achieved by the East Asian
“tigers”, in which “education, training and capital-labour accommodation
played a large part; in all these countries the state was strong, being in the mar-
ket as well as managing it”. There were two watershed crises in this process of
globalisation and neoliberal economic policies growing in strength: The havoc
caused by the 1997 Asian economic crisis; and the geopolitical and security
issues following the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
The mass of research literature on the topic shows globalisation processes are
complex, and indeed, often contradictory. There is little that is deterministic
about these developments, and perhaps may be more fruitfully considered in
respect to chaos theory.
As the 21st century unfolds we come to appreciate the full parameters of
globalisation, that it is “not a virtual phenomenon and its effects are enhanced,
even transformed, by the revolution in communications and the continuing
press of technology-driven innovation” [Gopinathan: 2007, 53]. Moreover,
globalisation is different things to different people and other social groups.
Some may perceive it as a process for removing restrictions, thus leading to
increased trade and economic growth and economic benefits, and a general
liberal and liberating process. While others argue the central issues in the
process are to the social costs. These critics point to the growing inequali-
ties in some countries, environmental degradation, commodification of cul-
ture and education, rise in unemployment, greater uncertainty and risk and
reduction of sovereign power in states as unacceptable consequences [Hsieh &
Tseng: 2002]. This is where many argue risk society theory connects with
globalisation.

Risk and young people

For most adults, young people appear to be extraordinarily prone to contro-
versy, anxiety-producing behaviour and risk-taking. Adolescents particularly
appear problematic and prone to heightening adult apprehension. Further
endorsing these concerns, research showing how the vagaries of childhood
and youth come under researchers’ metaphorical microscope. Bunton et al
[2004, 1] linked this to risk society theory, claiming: “Risk appears to have
become central to our understanding of childhood and adolescence”. Indeed,
for these researchers, “the unfinished selves and bodies of the young are viewed
as precarious and in need of guidance and governance”. Moreover, in this regard
there has been a shift in earlier eugenic ideas about the young human body
14 Introduction
from that of basically a “scientific” and “moral” view to one that “synonymous
with notions of hazards” [Bunton et al: 2004, 1].
At times, and often stimulated by moral panics, with their ever-increasing
hegemony over school education, national governments bring national school
educational systems into play in order to offset wider societal risks, such as
racism manifest in race riots, and acts of violence arising from Islamophobia.
Typically, this is through the history curriculum, the civics curriculum, or
indeed the science and mathematics curriculum, these learning areas increas-
ingly assumed a national purpose. There are multitudes of other examples of
national government being prompted by risk society thinking, increasing their
stamp of authority over schools, including national policies in health and physi-
cal education, and countering obesity in young people. In respect to the cost
on national budgets in health and in the likelihood of increasing decades of
welfare dependency, and general national challenges to productivity, sexual-
ity education is another example of national governments responding to risk
society imperatives.

Analysis and conclusions

This book aims to expand our understanding in two distinct ways of the impact
of risk society theory on school education. First, it seeks to do so at a theoreti-
cal level, increasing our understanding of risk society theory. Secondly, through
a select history of risk society impacts on school education, it seeks to improve
our understanding of the relationship between risk society theory and school
education, better informing us of the discourse surrounding risk society issues in
school education. For example, in the discourse during the second decade of the
21st century concerning the increased national government control of school
education, the discourse becomes better informed when the various stakehold-
ers become aware similar impacts of risk society imperatives on school educa-
tion. Moreover, using historical analysis of some issues in school education and
examining these through the lens of risk society theory, this book provides an
opportunity to examine these important aspects in a distinctive manner.
At some time or other, some form of risk society imperatives impact most
members of school education communities. This book addresses itself primar-
ily to these people – members of school communities: parents, teachers and
administrators – but also to students of education studies, student teachers, col-
lege and university lecturers who seek to understand imperatives underpinning
school education policy and practice. This book also will be of particular inter-
est to policymakers and politicians who may be experiencing, or have experi-
enced, risk society impacting on school education policy to which they may be
connected. In this respect, this study attempts to illustrate how to understand
the impact of these impacts on school education, particularly one needs to
look to the history of these influences, and also look to such phenomena as
political motives relating to them, and the wider societal connections. Thus,
 Introduction 15
for example, if we are studying nationwide standardised assessments in school
education, a closer examination of their history across a number or countries
will inform us much more fruitfully.

References
Aspinall, R.W. (2014). Education and risk: the application of risk society theory to the study
of education systems in Europe, America and Asia. Discussion Paper No. A-11. (July).
Center for Risk Research, Faculty of Economics, Shiga University.
Beck, U. (1992/2007). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U., Bonss, W. & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic,
hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society. 20(2) pp. 1–33.
Beck, U., Giddens, A. & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthet-
ics in the modern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bhambra, G.K. (2007). Rethinking modernity: postcolonialism and the sociological imagination.
Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bialostock, S. & Kamberelis, G. (2014). The play of risk, affect, and the enterprising self in
a fourth-grade classroom. In D. Blum & C. Ullman, The globalization and corporatization
of education: Limits and liminality of the market mantra, New York/London: Routledge,
pp. 51–68
Bialostok, S. & Whitman, R.L. (2012). Education and the Risk society: An introduction. In
S. Bialostok, R.L. Whitman & W.S. Bradley. Education and the risk society: Theories, discourse
and risk identities in education contexts. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 1–34
Bialostok, S., Whitman, R. & Bradley, W.S. (2014). Education and the risk society: theories,
discourse and risk identities in education contexts. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei. Sense.
Boudia, S. & Jas, N. (2007). Introduction: Risk and “risk society” in historical perspective.
History and Technology. 23(4). (December), pp. 317–331.
Bunton, R., Green, E. & Mitchell, W. (2004). Introduction: young people, risk and leisure,
an overview. In W. Mitchell, R. Bunton & E. Green (Eds) Young people, risk and leisure:
constructing identities in everyday life, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–26.
Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, “risk society” and the media: a catastrophic view? European
Journal of Communication (March) 13(1). pp. 5–32.
Dunne, M.J. (2016). Trump is right about one thing: auto trade with Asia is rigged, and
U.S. looks like a dupe. Forbes. (24 August). Retrieved 8 November 2016 from www.
[Link]/sites/michaeldunne/2016/08/24/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-auto-
trade-with-asia-is-rigged-and-u-s-looks-like-a-dupe/#290613055a48.
Ferdinando, L. (2016). “Resurgent Russia” poses threat to NATO, new commander says.
US Department of Defense. Retrieved 31 March 2017 from [Link]/News/
Article/Article/751800/resurgent-russia-poses-threat-to-nato-new-commander-says.
Federation under President Putin
Fielding-Barnsley, R. & Purdie, N. (2003). Early intervention in the home for children at
risk of reading failure. British Journal of Learning Support 18(2). pp. 77–82.
Gessen, M. (2017). The future is history: How totalitarianism reclaimed Russia, London: Penguin
Random House.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996). The end of capitalism (as we knew it): a feminist critique of
political economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile.
16 Introduction
Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education pol-
icy: a thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 5(1). pp. 53–70.
Hack, K. & Margolin, J-L. (2010). Singapore: Reinventing the global city. In K. Hack, &
J-L. Margolin (Eds) Singapore from Temasek to the 21st century: Reinventing the global city.
Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, pp. 19–51.
Hanlon, M. (2011). Why there is no British car industry. Daily Mail. (13 October).
Retrieved 8 November from [Link]/debate/article-2047860/British-car-
[Link].
Henderson, D. (2015). Globalisation and national curriculum reform in Australia: The push
for Asia literacy. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms.
Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 633–648.
Heng, Y-K (2015). Managing global risks in the urban age: Singapore and the making of a global
city. Farnham, Surry, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Hirst, J. (n.d.). The life & work of Russel Ward: The Australian Legend. Evatt Foundation.
Retrieved 30 January 2018 from [Link]
Hsieh, Y. L. & Tseng, S. F. (2002). The welfare state in the “information age”, hollowing
out or restructuring in the changing labour market in Singapore?. International Journal of
Human Resources Management, 13(3). pp. 501–521.
Kovacević, B. & Kovacević, I. (2017). Sociology of global risk society (Anthony Giddens and
Ulrich Beck), Banja Luka: Evropski defendologija centar za naucna, politicka, ekonomska,
socijalna, bezbjednosna, sociološka i kriminološka istraživanja.
Levin, J. (2001). Globalizing the community college. New York: Palgrave.
Moran, P.W. (2015). Efficiency, standardization and mitigating risk: the strange career of
scientific management in American education, 1890–2010. In S. Bialostok, R. Whit-
man & W.S. Bradley (2014). Education and the risk society: theories, discourse and risk identities
in education contexts. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense, pp. 121–152.
Ohmae, K. (1996). The end of the nation state: the rise of regional economics (How the engines of
prosperity are reshaping global markets). London: Harper Collins.
Ohmae, K. (2000). The invisible continent: Four strategic imperatives of the new economy. London:
Routledge.
Robertson, S. L. (2003). The politics of re-territorialisation: space, scale and teachers as a
professional class. In H. Athanasaides & A. Patramanis (Eds). Teachers and European Integra-
tion. Athens: Educational Institute, pp. 132–150.
Rosenberg, J. (2000). The follies of globalisation theory. London: Verso.
Scott, J. & Marshal, G. (2005). A dictionary of sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shangquan, G. (2000). Economic globalization: trends, risks and risk prevention. Economic
and Social Affairs: CDP Background Paper No. 1. ST/ESA/2000/CDP/1. P. 3.
Shine, R. (2017). Scientists tracing ancient Aboriginal fire practices on remote Tasmanian
island unearth fresh timelines. ABC News (11 September). Retrieved 13 September
2017 from [Link]/news/2017-09-11/scientists-tracing-ancient-aboriginal-fire-
practice-on-tasmania/8891626.
Sidahamed, M. (2016). Big five US sectors whose decline has driven voters to Donald
Trump. The Guardian. (6 November). Retrieved 8 November 2016 from [Link]
[Link]/business/2016/nov/05/five-us-industry-sectors-decline-voters-trump.
Spring, J. (2015). Globalization and education. An introduction. New York/London: Routledge.
Stack, L. (2016). Globalism: a far-right conspiracy theory buoyed by Trump. New York Times
(14 November). Retrieved 4 November 2017 from [Link]/2016/11/15/us/
politics/[Link].
 Introduction 17
Stomquist, N., & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its implications
on knowledge and education. In N. Stomquist, & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and
education, Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 3–25.
Tatto, M.T. (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Didcot: Symposium Books.
Ward, R. (1952) Man makes history. Sydney. Shakespeare Head Press.
Webb, S.A. (2006). Risk, Social Work and Society International Online Journal. 4(2). Retrieved
1 October 2016 from [Link]/sws/article/view/166/555.
Zajda, J. (2015). Globalisation and its impact on educational policy. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Second
international handbook on globalisation, education and policy research, Heidelberg: Springer,
pp. 105–126.
1 The looming presence
of risk society

Introduction
There is little new in the notion of risk. There has always been a contingent
and vagarious edge to life and societies. “What has changed is the nature of
risk. . . . The way we interpret risk, negotiate risk, and live with the unforseen
consequences of modernity will structure our culture, society and politics for
the coming decades” [Franklin: 1998, 1]. Indeed, how does this translate into
the political process and into public policy? According to Franklin [1998, 8],
“risk society is forcing us to make decisions”. The old politics asserts old cer-
tainties, insisting other people will make these decisions for us. Now, risk soci-
ety politics is more demanding. It demands active participation through all
layers of social, political and economic activity. Perhaps, this helps explain the
2016 Brexit decision, the election of President Trump, and in Australia the
rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, and also Green parties in national
politics from the 1980s, as people attempted to respond to what they perceive
to be national risks resulting from globalisation.
Postmodern societies are continually confronted with national risks and
threats. What genetically modified (GM) foods did for one generation, marine
life contaminated by ocean-plagued plastics did for another generation. This
is worthy of mention for what it means to risk society theory: “Plastic waste
pollution of our planet has reached crisis point, especially in the oceans where
it poses unprecedented threat to marine life. . . . Birds, sea turtles, and marine
mammals, have all been found entangled in plastics, or with ingested pieces of
plastics . . . suffer[ing] impaired movement, ability to feed and reproduce; as
well as lacerations, ulcerations and death” [Plastic poisons in the food chain:
2015, n.p.]. Or as Vince and Hardesty [2016, 1] puts it: “Plastic pollution in
the marine and coastal environment is a challenging restoration and gover-
nance issue. Similar to many environmental problems, marine plastic pollution
is transboundary and therefore the governance solutions are complex”. In fact,
“although the marine environment is unlikely to return to the condition it was
in before the ‘plastic era’, it is an example of an environmental restoration chal-
lenge where successful governance and environmental stewardship would likely
result in a healthier global oceanic ecosystem” [Vince & Hardesty: 2016, 1].
 The looming presence of risk society 19
Indeed, viewed through the lens of risk society theory, that is where the drive
from local to global governance comes in. Risk society determines this. “In
risk society, modern society becomes reflexive, that is, becomes both an issue
and a problem for itself ” [Eid: 2003, 816].
Increasingly since the 1960s, climate change is being linked with natural
disasters. With technological “advances”, progressively plastics are manufac-
tured and used in ever-increasing ways, much of it finding its way in oceans.
Obviously, these kinds of risk touch different nations in different ways. Small
island nations such as Bangladesh will suffer disproportionally, as small island
nations are among the most vulnerable – the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu,
Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands (in the Pacific
Ocean); Antigua and Nevis (in the Caribbean Sea); and the Maldives (in
the Indian Ocean). These are the same nations which climate change is first
impacting [Bruce: 1993].
This brings into question the role of science in modernity. Beck [1998,
13] contended many people in the age of risk believed there can only be one
authority left, and that is science. But science is not like that, nor are the
demands of risk society. “It’s not failure but success which has demonopolized
science”: for example, witness climate change and plastic contaminate oceans.
In Giddens’ [1998, 23] words: “As the pace of innovation hots up . . . new
technologies impact more and more to the core of our lives”.
Since the 1970s, risk society theory has gathered much traction amongst
researchers from a variety of disciplines, if not education. But what might a
history of risk society and school education reveal? To adopt Beck’s [2015, 331]
words: “To the extent that risk is experienced as omnipresent, there are only
three possible reactions: denial, apathy or transformation”. Indeed, “how to
live in the shadow of global risks? How to live, when old certainties are shat-
tered or are now revealed as lies?” [Beck’s: 2015, 331] These words should not
be taken as something to be feared or something to be apprehensive about, but
rather as providing an invitation to travel where few researchers hitherto have
dared, and to uncover some wonderful new knowledge and understandings of
school education.
Indeed, by examining through this chapter the essential characteristics of
risk society theory, and then in proceeding chapters applying these features to
broad areas of school education, we will be able to bring fresh understandings
to school education, and of course as well as social risk theory. We will come
to realise risk society is responding at every turn, certainly as the following
pages of this book will reveal, in almost every nook and cranny of school
education.
Our challenge in this chapter is to elucidate the main characteristics of the
risk society thesis that will at once invite further research, and stimulate fresh
enquiry into aspects of school education in Australia, the UK and the US. We
begin by breaking some relatively new ground by looking at how an histori-
cal analysis of risk society theory has fared thus far. Here, we are struck by an
enormous projection of opportunity.
20 The looming presence of risk society
Historicising risk society theory
The response by the New Right, in some parts of the world “scoffed at con-
cern for the environment, denied the ecological responsibilities of government
and aimed to privatise environmental risk by transferring responsibility to the
market” [Gray: 1998, 44]. Market forces could be used to harness science and
defeat this threat. For decades, science had shown that it could dominate and
control nature [Tindale: 1998].
In some comparatively rare research, Boudia and Nathalie [2007, 10]
stressed the value in researching risk society theory within a historical frame-
work, “and thus underlin[ing] the centrality of its political dimension[s]”.
These researchers looked to environmental legislation in the UK, the US
and Germany to illustrate how politics is imbedded in social risk theory:
“The Thatcher era broke the trades union movement in Great Britain, the
Reagan administration strengthened the US Government’s grip on the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency to the benefit of industry, and the government
of Helmut Kohl in Germany ignored the demands of German ecological
movements”.
Beginning with the Tasmania imbroglio over the 1972 flooding of the iconic
Lake Pedder for a hydroelectric power station, and then the proposed dam-
ming of the Gordon River another environmentalist story emerged in this far
off Australian island state. The politics of these latter events were intense, and
assisted in the 1983 Hawke Labour Government’s national victory.
As Boudia and Nathalie [2007, 10] have shown, risk society theory “has
generated a large body of research into the role and impact of science on risk
which came to dominate the field and dealt with participatory democracy,
deliberative procedures (e.g., citizens’ conferences and hybrid forums) and stan-
dards for good governance in science”. Our task in the following chapters is
to illustrate how this kind of research can be applied to school education in
Australia, the UK and the US.
Beck proposed some key hallmarks that for him separate our historical
moment from earlier eras. Central to his thesis is that risk has escaped the
control of institutions and governments, albeit much of what preoccupies
institutions and governments is what Beck termed “manufactured risk” – for
example, “risk amplified by a self-interested security state” [Culver: 2011, 7].
Culver [2011] argued a historical perspective of this is vitally important for a
percipience understanding. Successive stages of modernity are evident when
governments and institutions set out to control risk, as well as perceptions of
risk. Again, this is central to the risk society thesis. Culver [2011, 7] wrote in
respect to the “‘first’ modernity, efforts were made to manage and ‘demoralize’
risk”, came with workplace safety, when early in the 20th century the onus
for workplace safety moved from workers to employers. Something similar
occurred about the same time in respect to the state and changing norms of
sexuality in society, moving from being a personal issue to one that was per-
ceived by some legislators to be a government responsibility.
 The looming presence of risk society 21
Chapter 5 of this present study, for example, demonstrates how the govern-
ments and health and educational authorities at times dealt with what they
considered to be sexually precocious young girls, considered to be a liability
to the state – by subjecting them, inter alia, to a clitoridectomy. Now, instead
of moralising the perceived problem, the state would intervene at times,
depending on the girls’ social class, in performing clitoridectomies on these
young girls. In the more recent “second” modernity, the state and institutions
attempted to manage a perceived risk by anticipating dangers that we individu-
ally have not experienced. In stark contrast to the earlier phase of modernity,
now the state and institutions in attempting to control risk, promotes sexuality
education programs in its schools and colleges. This is undertaken at some level
of responses from certain moral provocateurs, moral entrepreneurs and political
elites [Rodwell: 2017].
Not only does the historicising of risk society theory and school educa-
tion strengthen our understanding of risk society theory, it also strengthens
our understanding of school education, both historically and in the present.
Following the work of the late and influential academic and educational his-
torian, Professor Joe Lyons Kincheloe (1950–2008), from McGill University
in Montreal, McLaren [1995: 29] who argued for this kind of analysis. He
urged educational historians to: “Improve their ability to uncover the way that
power works, personality is produced, disciplinary matrixes are legitimated and
objectivity is defined”.
Tracing out the history of risk society impacting school education, this
present book will reveal exactly how “power works, personality is produced”
[Kincheloe: 1991, 232]. Although little recorded and analysed, with the virtual
ascendency of risk society thinking over school educational policy interna-
tionally, the impact of this thinking on school education national policy has
accentuated vastly during the early decades of the 21st century. Typically, this
underpins the value of studying the history of what has been labelled “edu-
cational reforms”, demonstrating the great accomplishments of the past were
cumulative and comprised the building blocks that “would raise us to a higher
standing-point from which we may see much that will make the right road
clearer to us” [McCulloch: 2011, 29].

Modernity and the notion of progress

Questioning the very idea of progress is at the heart of risk society theory. As
with an unquestioned dam-building program on wild rivers, drowning ancient
forests, as with a misplaced idea of progress, risk society theory brings into
question notions of progress.
The author of this present book grew up in rural Australia during the post-
war decades, when the country, with the help of an apparently endless stream
of World War II refugees, was rebuilding and adjusting to a new world order,
dominated in the West by the US, and the East by the USSR. Despite the
22 The looming presence of risk society
Cold War anxieties, for me, apparent evidence of progress was at every turn,
and most of this had to do with developments in material wellbeing and tech-
nological developments. It was during these years that courtesy of the New
South Government public school system that I was provided with Ward’s 1952
textbook for lower-secondary history students from which I was to learn the
“truths” of modern science in national progress, and their “superiority” over
Indigenous knowledge and culture.
“The essence of the Western idea of progress can be simply stated: mankind
has advanced in the past, is now advancing, and may be expected to continue
advancing in the future” [Nisbet: n.d., n.p.]. What exactly do we mean when
we speak of “advance”? We discover it is a highly nuanced word, with meanings
ranging from the “most sublimely spiritual advance to the absolutely physical
or material” [Nisbet: n.d., n.p.]. The Greeks and others liked to conceptualise
progress in terms of the advancement of knowledge, particularly of the prac-
tical and scientific kind. But the idea was provided with a new twist by the
ancient Christians and others, when they referred to “advance” or “progress”
in a material sense, which would lead to notions of adapting the environment
or society for the benefit of “mankind”, with these ideas being contextualised
in democratic or totalitarian forms.
Even as early as the late 1960s, some thinkers were questioning the notion
of progress. Inter alia, Aron [1968, 109] wrote of how the so-called progress
embodied in modern Western societies had been accompanied by a massive
breakdown of traditional families. In his acclaimed work – Progress and disil-
lusion: the dialectics of modern society (1968), Aron cited vast examples of disillu-
sion of progress in “modern” Western societies. In agricultural societies, with
increasing mechanisation, there has been “such inroads on farming and the
crafts that family working units are becoming increasingly rare”. The move
to the cities by rural folk, had become almost a stampede, resulting in cities
becoming tragic scenes of social alienation, and the focus of ever-increasing
government expenditure. While back on the farm, in a drive continually to
improve production, with decreasing labour costs, farmers increasingly looked
to GM crops. Within a decade or so, theorists were transforming Aron’s con-
cerns into fresh theories questioning the idea of progress. By the 1980s, these
theorists were writing of this scenario described by Aron as risk society, and
there are vast other examples troubling these writers.

The rise of green political parties

Sometime during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and not so subtly, the world
was changing. For example, a visitor to Australia’s island state, Tasmania, dur-
ing this period would have noticed a marked difference in conceptions of the
relationships between government and society. Here, over the past few decades,
the Hydroelectric Commission (HEC) master-minded major hydroelectric
infrastructure works, which transformed and industrialised the state’s economy
and society. As with the vast Snowy Mountains Scheme in Eastern Australia,
 The looming presence of risk society 23
governments provided immense numbers of displaced people from war-torn
Europe with financial assistance to migrate and work on these state-owned
schemes. For example, in Tasmania, remnants of the Polish Free Army were
destined to play a principal role in these massive social and economic changes.
The SS Asturias passenger list for September 1947 shows “278 Polish Soldiers’ –
Address C/- Tasmanian Hydro-Electricity Commission”. Farmers, locksmiths,
painters . . . soldiers from the Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade (“Rats
of Tobruk”), they had served with Allied Forces in North Africa. The soldiers
arrived in uniform and were sent to Tasmania’s Butlers Gorge, where they lived
in purpose-built camps, many of which are now a part of Tasmanian folklore.
Thousands of Polish immigrants followed. While their grand social and cul-
tural clubs, built in the 1950s, by the 21st century were lying almost derelict,
with the ageing of the original immigrants. Many of their children, however,
went on to carve out prominent careers in the state, and nationally. And many
of these second-generation Tasmanian Polish people would not share their par-
ents’ drive to dam Tasmania’s magnificent wild rivers.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Australian politicians were happy to fall into
line in building such grand schemes and the Snowy Mountains [hydroelectric]
Scheme. The long-standing Tasmanian Labour Premier, Eric Reece, was affec-
tionately known as ‘Electric Eric’. Without an opposing voice hardly being
sounded, the HEC dammed river after river. That is, until in 1970 it announced
it would build a huge dam over Lake Pedder, an isolated lake of great beauty
in Southwest Tasmania. Immediately, public opposition was forthcoming – the
voices of dissent, basically coming from another generation – the so-called
baby boomers. Lake Pedder, however, was dammed and flooded by 1972, and
in doing so dammed the Serpentine and Huon rivers. The HEC announced
its next project would be the damming of the equally environmentally sen-
sitive Franklin River, which joins the Gordon River nearby on Tasmania’s
West Coast. But suddenly the Tasmanian Government and the HEC discov-
ered Australians were concerned about the future of the Tasmanian wilderness.
Now, risk society thinking was beginning to impact government policy as the
very notions of “progress” were brought into question.
The resulting bitter public campaign led to the consolidation of the small
green movement born out of the campaigns opposing the damming of Lake
Pedder, and within decades becoming a major third force in Australian politics,
indeed within a short period, world politics. Over the five years between the
announcement of the dam proposal in 1978 and the axing of the plans in 1983,
there was vigorous debate between the pro- and anti-dam lobbies, with large
protests from both sides.
With much publicity, in December 1982, protestors occupied the dam site,
leading to widespread arrests and greater publicity. Amongst the arrested pro-
testors was the future founder and leader of the Greens in the Australian Par-
liament, Dr Bob Brown. The dispute became a federal issue the following
March, when a campaign in the national print media, helped bring down Mal-
colm Fraser’s Conservative Coalition government at the 1983 election. Now,
24 The looming presence of risk society
the Labour Government, under Bob Hawke, had promised to stop the dam
from being built. A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian
Government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court ruling in the federal
government’s favour Milne: n.d.; Brown & Singer: 1996; Lohrey: 2002b].
The founding of the Global Greens in Canberra in 2001, flagged the glo-
balisation of green politics, and arguably a wider recognition of the politics of
risk society, and in this case an eco-political movement which began in Austra-
lia’s island state of Tasmania [Blakers: 2001]. The Global Greens have as their
core values “ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, non-
violence, sustainability and respect for diversity”. And their priorities include:
“Reforming the dominant economic model, tackling climate change, ending
the hunger crisis, promoting vibrant democracy, working for peace, protecting
biodiversity” [Blakers: 2001, n.p.; Hay: 2002].
The UK and the US provide numerous similar examples of incidents and
issues underscoring risk society theory [Beck, 2015; Boudia & Nathalie: 2007].
Political scientists are now turning to risk society theory to explain the rise of
Green politics [Yanitsky: 2001].
Further evidence of the widening impact of risk society thinking came
in Australia’s island state. At about the time Bob Brown was politicising the
environmental movement, another Tasmania was developing ideas concern-
ing permaculture – “you can’t have growth forever” became a catchcry. This
was a result of the perceived danger of the rapidly growing use of industrial-
agricultural methods. In their view, highly dependent on non-renewable
resources, these methods were additionally poisoning land and water, reduc-
ing biodiversity, and removing billions of tons of topsoil from previously fer-
tile landscapes. Mollison and others responded with a design approach, which
Mollison labelled permaculture, and was first made public with the publication
of their book Permaculture one (1978). Under Mollison’s drive, permaculture
became a worldwide movement, connected with the broader environmental
movement, and yet another response to risk society imperatives.

Climate change brings new imperatives to risk

society theory
“Climate change is perhaps the ultimate global problem”, wrote Jarman
[2010, 299].

It is caused by everyone, affects everyone, and required the cooperation

of everyone for its solution. Mounting evidence suggests that a warm-
ing world is already contributing to major problems, from refugee cri-
ses prompted by rising sea levels to famines caused by desertification. Yet
national leaders have found reaching agreements on how to tackle this
challenging remarkably difficult.
[Jarman: 2010, 299]
 The looming presence of risk society 25
Perhaps, not surprisingly so difficult, issues of climate change are highly politi-
cised, and any change in national governments brings with considerable trepi-
dation. With the incoming President Trump, Davenport [2016, n.p.] reported
in the New York Times how “for a look at how sharply policy in Washington
will change under the administration of Donald J. Trump, look no further
than the environment”. Indeed, “Mr. Trump has called human-caused climate
change a ‘hoax’. He has vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection
Agency ‘in almost every form’”.
“The metamorphosis of the world is about the hidden emancipatory side
effect of global risk”, proclaimed Beck [2015, 81], and at the same time con-
tending, “talk about bads produces ‘common goods’”. As such, risk society
theory in respect to climate change and global warming “is not about the
negative side-effects of goods but the positive side-effects of bads”. Thus, glob-
ally threatened by the terrible consequences of climate change, there will come
“normative horizons of common goods”. For Beck [2015, 82], this is “eman-
cipatory catastrophism”, where the notion “can be seen and analysed by using
three conceptual lenses: first, the anticipation of global catastrophe violates
sacred (unwritten) norms of human existence and civilization; second, thereby
it causes an anthropological shock, and, third, a social catharsis”.
Almost, but not quite, these were Beck’s last words. He died on 1 January
2015, as his Metamorphosis of the world (2016) was with the publishers. Accord-
ing to Time, more than any other individual, Beck can claim credit for the
popularising of the term “risk society”, and its essential messages. With the
1986 publication of his book Risk society: Towards a new modernity, . . . “he
argued that the modern society created as a result of technological advance-
ment is inherently riskier than its industrial precursor” [Iyengar: 2015, n.p.].
Although the notion of the risk society had been around for some years, now
the theory of reflexive modernisation was born.
With his last book, as was often his cause, he had much to say about politics
and power, but most of all about global risks, risks which are fundamentally
characterised by the problem of invisibility. The problematic of invisibility is
intrinsically connected to the “problem of power” [Beck: 2016, 99]. He was
talking about climate change, GM food, and so on, but he could have been
addressing, for example, the topics of the incessant problems of racism, xeno-
phobia and Islamophobia and how these were impacting on school education.
Albeit with little success thus far for institutional change, Beck used the
threat of climate change as another example of risk institutions have attempted
to control. Commenting on Beck’s theories concerning climate change, Cul-
ver [2011, 7] reckoned: “while global climate change is clearly a dire risk” in
an historical and analytical context, Beck [2016] stands firm in arguing, “this
particular historical moment is by definition more risk-aware, or more of a risk
society, than some other historical moments”.
Risk society theory views climate change as a “classical” example of its
main tenets: societal success – advances in technology and consumer capitalism
26 The looming presence of risk society
resulted in the carbon dioxide, methane and other emissions which are alter-
ing the planet’s climate. Yet, for Culver [2011], historically, while there are
significant similarities with earlier global threats, there are also momentous
differences. Take the nuclear threat of the Cold War decades. Culver [2011]
argued the Cold War itself was the product of its own sort of success. The
USSR and the US had succeeded in developing their economies and military
machines to defeat the Axis Powers, and in the postwar decades of the Cold
War were “able to dominate global affairs – and threaten the world with
annihilation – because both states had successfully mobilized their militaries
and economies to win World War II. Their atomic arsenals were a product of
their technological and economic power”. Despite its outward political pos-
turings, mostly for domestic politics, the Cold War conflict between these two
blocks and their allies was also a struggle to contain nuclear weapons within
national and international institutions – “treaties signed to limit the number
or types of weapons each nation stockpiled, for example, or efforts to prevent
a nuclear exchange triggered by a computer malfunction or miscommunica-
tion” [Culver: 2011, 9].
For Culver [2011], “climate change does not fit Beck’s definitions of risk
and a risk society as well as the Cold War does in retrospect”. Unlike the Cold
War nuclear threat, “climate change does not threaten all individuals or nations
equally. Wealthy individuals and nations will have more resources at their dis-
posal than poor ones”. Climate change is impacting these small, coastal and
island nations, with similar results as marine plastic infestations. Ill-equipped
technologically and financially to counter the threats to their very existence,
these countries look for international assistance.
The risks posed by global warming may be universal, but their consequences
are not suffered equally. For example, the Maldives, a north-south lying con-
stellation of 1,192 islands grouped in a double chain of 26 atolls with a total
land area of only 298 square kilometres spread over 107, 500 square kilometres
in the Indian Ocean. Here, sea-level rise, beach erosion, storm surges and
increased rainfall brutally threaten the nation. The area of the largest island is
2.5 square kilometres; only four out of 200 inhabited islands have more than
5000 people. About 30 per cent of the current population, including 120,000
children, is at risk of becoming physically and socially vulnerable because of
climate change hazards [Das: 2010].

Risk society paradigms begin to impact school education:

environmental education
With environmental concerns first awakening certain elements of society, as
revealed in the 1972 Tasmanian Lake Pedder social/political entanglement, fol-
lowed by later international environmental concerns, not surprisingly an envi-
ronmental education curriculum began to emerge in many school education
systems. At first, this was a very benign affair, with little political ramifications,
and certainly few people connecting it to any emerging social risk theory.
 The looming presence of risk society 27
Environmental education can be traced back as early as the 18th century
with Jean-Jacques Rousseau stressing the importance of an education focus-
ing on the environment in his celebrated Emile: or, likewise several decades
later in both Europe and America, Louis Agassiz, a Swiss-born naturalist in
his less well-known On education, encouraging students to “study nature, not
books”. In the long-term, while being influential in the development of envi-
ronmental education, for these influential pedagogues this was an opportunity
to move education from the dry bookish recitation to immersing students in
the natural world: for example, to have students appreciate beauty, this should
not be done by having students recite from books, but rather take them for an
excursion to a forest. Here, the pedagogues were primarily concerned with just
that – pedagogy.
Another impetus towards environmental education came with the early
20th-century Nature Study and Country Life Movements. Anna Botsford
Comstock, the head of the Department of Nature Study at Cornell University,
was a prominent figure in the nature study movement and wrote the Handbook
for nature study (1911), using Nature to educate children on cultural values.
Liberty Hyde Bailey was a prominent advocate of the related Country Life
Movement. He was founding editor of the journals Country life in America and
the Cornell countryman, and his The nature study idea (1903) and his The outlook
to nature (1905) were influential works. But Bailey’s prime motives were social
and economic – to persuade Americans to return to the land, offsetting the
movement of people to cities, and the maintenance of a strong and vibrant
yeomanry. There was, moreover, a strong “soft” eugenic touch to his ideas,
in the belief that the rural environment bred a stronger more resilient stock
[Rodwell: 1997].
Gaining development from Nature Study and the post-Depression Conser-
vation Education Movement, modern environmental education gained sig-
nificant momentum in the late 1960s and early 1970s, soon paralleling and
in sympathy with the embryonic green movement we previously have noted.
This signalled risk society thinking, and soon kicked into school education,
with educational authorities responding to wider environmental concerns.
One of the first articles about environmental education as a new movement
appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan in 1969, authored by James A. Swan. The
journal Environmental Education appeared (1969–1971), becoming The Journal of
Environmental Education, with an article offering a definition of environmental
education being published appeared in 1969, authored by William B. Stapp.
He later went on to become the first Director of Environmental Education for
UNESCO, and then the Global Rivers International Network, all of this mir-
roring a commitment by school authorities to environmental education, but
also indexing the looming impact of risk society thinking on governments and
school authorities.
As Dr Bob Brown and his fellow “greenies” were organising themselves con-
cerning the proposed and much-publicised destruction of Lake Pedder in Tas-
mania, Americans celebrated the first Earth Day on 22 April 1970 – a national
28 The looming presence of risk society
teach-in about environmental problems. Later that same year, President Nixon
passed the National Environmental Education Act (1970), aimed at incorporating
environmental education into K-12 schools. Then, in 1971, the National Asso-
ciation for Environmental Education (now known as the North American
Association for Environmental Education, NAAEE) was created to improve
environmental literacy by providing resources to teachers and promoting envi-
ronmental education programs. Soon, these initiatives gained global promi-
nence. Internationally, environmental education gained recognition when the
UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden,
in 1972, declaring environmental education a fundamental tool in addressing
global environmental problems. The United Nations Education Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) provided major declarations guiding the course of environmental
education [Thompson: 1997]. The history of environmental education illus-
trates the potency of risk society imperatives to ideas on this aspect of school
education reaching back centuries, in this case.
More recently, responding to the manifold environmental risks, Palmer
[1997, 7] claimed: “At the level of educational practice, education about and in
the environment has tended to be predominant around the world. Rather rarer
attempts to enact forms of education for the environment are being promoted
in the UK and the USA, and elsewhere with resultant international inter-
ests” (emphasis in original). Becoming increasingly in touch with risk society
imperatives, this “engagement in environmental education” has involved:

• “personal involvement of students and emotional commitment

• interdisciplinary learning and research
• reflective action to improve environmental conditions, and
• involvement of students in decision making or problem finding, in proce-
dures, and in monitoring their work.”
[Palmer: 1997, 7]

Theorising on the politics of risk society theory

While risk is a social and cognitive construct, it is now recognised “politi-
cal approaches to tackle risk find themselves regularly confronted with cer-
tain mental barriers”. Moreover, “symbolic elements in politics are very useful
in the context of communication about environmental risks” [Matten: 2004,
387]. Risk society theory alerts us to how, “symbolic elements of politics such
as the names of certain acts and ordinances, the integration of environmental
elements in governmental white papers or even the constitution of a state, as
well as education programmes target on these issues” [Matten: 2004, 387].
Most readers are aware of the introduction of waste management programs,
either by national, state or local government legislation – an example of this
symbolic character of legislation. Communities across different countries
needed to be educated in the virtues and practices of separating waste into
 The looming presence of risk society 29
different kinds of bins prior to regular collection, and in some communities
this required the use of three or more rubbish bins. Clearly, this was all about
community environmental education, with school education playing a major
role. There can be little doubt the wide-ranging inclusion of consumers in the
domestic separating waste has fundamentally changed the attitude of people
towards the environmental impact of their consumer behaviour, and is wit-
ness to risk society imperatives, often through school education, impacting on
domestic and community behaviours [Matten: 2004, 387]. This has been an
obvious example of Aspinall’s [2014] notion of risk as a case of positive impact
on education.
“When progress and doom seem to be interwoven, the goals of social devel-
opment are antithetical at all levels”, wrote Beck [1991/1995, 30]. While the
pages of history are full of conflicts and revolutions, and “certainly not the first
conflict that modern society has had to master”, albeit, it “is one of the most
influential” [Beck: 1991/1995, 30]. In the past revolutions and class conflicts
have simply “change[d] power relations and exchange[d] elites”, but at the
same time unquestionably, even more sternly, “holding fast to the goals of
technological progress” [Beck: 1991/1995, 30]: witness the Russian Revolu-
tion, which replaced the Czars with Stalin et al, but pushed ahead with indus-
trialisation to the extent of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, or the 1979 Iranian
Revolution, which hastened the country into being a global nuclear power.
As a reflection of risk society “revolution” to world politics, environmental
politics and the rise of the Greens have changed the face of politics in a very
different manner. This “revolution” has been associated with Western societies
questioning the very basis of scientific, technological and industrial progress.
“The double face of self-annihilating progress, however, produces conflicts that
cast doubt on the social bases of rationality – science, law, and democracy”
[Beck: 1991/1995, 30–31]. Indeed, “society is thus placed under permanent
pressure to negotiate foundations without a foundation of its own. It experi-
ences an institutional destabilization, in which all decisions – from local gov-
ernment policy on speed limits, to the details of industrial manufacturing, to
the basis of energy supply, law and technological development – can be sud-
denly drawn into fundamental political conflicts” [Beck: 1991/1995, 31].
In her account of the rise of the Australian Greens, Lohrey [2002a, ix]
referred to “the great American critic” Lionel Trilling’s [1972, 1] words in his
lecture series, Sincerity and authenticity: “now and then it is possible to observe
the moral life in the process of revising itself, perhaps by reducing the emphasis
it formerly placed upon one or another of its elements, perhaps by inventing
and adding to itself a new element, some mode of conduct or feeling which
hitherto it had regarded as essential to virtue”. For Lohrey [2002, ix], this was
an important pointer to what the Greens stood for – walking the talk. For her,
essentially, this was a response to “identikit” politicians playing out “identikit”
policies, on both the Left and the Right of Australian politics, when con-
fronted by the challenges of globalism. “The rise of One Nation has been one
response to this phenomenon: the rise of the Greens is another”.
30 The looming presence of risk society
In the countries under consideration in this book, the year 2016 was remark-
able in respect to national politics. First, there was the result of the 23 June
2016 Brexit referendum in the UK. Then, there was the re-emergence of
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in the Senate in the Australian double
dissolution federal election of 2 July. Finally, there was the endorsement and
eventual election of the “maverick” President Trump. Collectively, these results
illustrate a general move away from conventional party politics. The Inspec-
tor General of France’s educational system, Michel [2001, 219], put it this
way: “Globalization, because of the risks it brings of soulless standardization,
can lead to fragmentation and a reduced sense of belonging to a wider com-
munity”. Indeed, for Michel [2001, 219], “the excesses of unbridled markets,
in which prices and the market are more important than social or cultural
relationships, are being met with a reaction of narrow nationalism, regionalism
and parochialism”.
Clearly, in the UK, Australia and the US, there was a general expression by
voters of dissatisfaction with the status quo of national politics. Beck [1992/2007,
195] wrote: “Constitutional rights . . . are hinges for a decentralization of poli-
tics with long-term amplification effects. They offer multiple possibilities for
interpretation and, in different historical situations, new starting points to break
up formerly, restrictive and selective interpretations”. Beck [1992/2007, 195]
argued this would give rise to the kind of politics which saw the rise of Dr Bob
Brown and the Greens in Australia. By 2016, however, it was evident it could
also, under different economic and social circumstance, prompt the rise of par-
ties on the right, who sought to withdraw into a comfortable isolationism and
protection from the vagaries of perceived evils of Islam, and so on.
Islamophobia and general xenophobia were major drivers for Brexit, Pau-
line Hanson’s One Nation and Donald Trump’s Republican Party presidential
candidature endorsement. For many voters, in these countries, Islamophobia,
a general xenophobia, and the perceived deeper associated national problems,
such as terrorism and the perceived breakdown of law and order, signified
a country unhinged. Illustrating this line of argument, first, by Beauchamp
[2016, n.p.] who reported how he was accosted in a London pub by a middle-
aged Anglo-Saxon who growled: “No, Bob wanted to talk about Brexit –
the UK referendum that . . . ended in Britain voting to leave the European
Union. Bob wanted Britain to leave, and he was very open about his reason –
immigration. The Muslims and the Eastern Europeans, he believes, are ruining
Great Britain”.
Then there was the 2016 Australian federal election and the re-emergence
of Hanson’s One Nation party. On her election, Hanson flagged to Prime
Minister Turnbull she would be using her numbers in the Senate to pursue her
party’s policy of banning the “building new mosques until a Royal Commis-
sion into whether Islam is a religion or an ideology has been held, and installing
CCTV [closed-circuit television] cameras in all existing mosques” [“I won’t
back down . . .”: 2016, n.p.]. Twenty years earlier in her Maiden Speech to
the House of Representatives, she was targeting Asians. In a like vein, observe
 The looming presence of risk society 31
Donald Trump’s various outbursts concerning Muslims in America [Vitali:
2016, n.p.]. Equally amazing was a push by some pro-Brexit people in the UK
to return to imperial measurements [Now we’re out of the EU . . .: 2016, n.p.].
Or on the other hand, consider some outspoken pro-Brexit politician speaks
out on the perceived evils of UK Muslim migration. Again, consider when
Senator Hanson spoke out in her Maiden Speech on the necessity of banning
Muslim migration to Australia, her relentless campaign to ban the burqa. By
2017, Islamophobia in Australia had reached new depths, with women being
prime victims. Inter alia, a national report showed how schools and school
surroundings are settings for this phobia [Iner: 2017, 4]. In a cruel twist for
Australians, and in an action which shocked the world, in a bizarre attempt at
publicity only months following the release of the report, national TV news
reports showed Hanson appearing in the Australian Senate in a burqa [Mor-
gan & Zivic: 2017]. Even more tragically, the next day horrified Australian
awoke to the news of an ISIS-inspired (State of Iraq and al-Sham) massacre in
Barcelona, Spain [ABC News: 2017]. In all of these cases through the main-
stream media, or social media, this immediately fed the daily news cycle in the
US, the UK and Australia. Risk society and the globalisation of the media in
its various forms go hand-in-hand.
With this obsession with a fear of the future, coupled for a longing to return
to the familiar of years past, was modernity breaking down traditional national
politics?
“In these circumstances”, writes Giddens [1999, 29], “there is a new moral
climate of politics, marked by a push and pull between accusations of scare-
mongering on the one hand, and of cover-ups on the other”. Indeed, “if any-
one – government official, scientific expert or researcher – takes a given risk
seriously, he or she must proclaim it”. In its multiple forms and platforms, the
media chimes in, proclaiming the risk to be indeed to be real, on one hand,
or on the other, some form of hoax or pseudo risk, even a moral panic, often
ignited by some form of dog-whistle journalism and/or politics. Increasingly,
the various systems of the media drive government policy, proclaiming moral
panics, and generally sensationalising news seemingly reeking of some form of
risk.
This new “moral climate of politics” is portrayed effectively in the interna-
tional Green movement. The political parties first representing this movement
have now moved from “protest to acquiescence”. “Grass-roots democracy has
been the hallmark of Green parties ever since they slowly (and sometimes pain-
fully) grew out of the new social movements and established themselves as
political parties” [Poguntke: 2005, 275]. Soon, however, these Green parties
were wielding considerable national clout: for example, in the Australian Par-
liament following the 2016 elections with 10.2% of the national vote, there was
one Green member in the House of Representative, and nine senators. In the
US, the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) has several members elected
in state legislatures, including in California, Maine and Arkansas. A number
of Greens around the US hold positions on the municipal level, including on
32 The looming presence of risk society
school boards, city councils and as mayors [Poguntke: 2005]. In the UK the
Green Party has a seat in each of the Lords and Commons, and three seats in
the European Parliament.
Coming as it did on the eve of the US federal election, the 2016 Australian
federal election casts new light on changes of government and consequent
social and economic change. “As interpreted by social scientists, the change
of governments is the central operational criterion which gives an essential
indication of a society’s democratic quality”, wrote Beck [1997, 41]. Thus,
“blinded to the consequences by the central ideology of economic growth, and
with the blessings of a policy that invokes safety and order, predicably unpre-
dictable side-effects are continuously unleashed that are irreversibly binding
on future generations, which are excluded from the decision-making process
and for which no one can be held liable” [Beck: 1997, 41]. This chapter has
demonstrated how one such “side-effect” of the Australian 2016 federal elec-
tion was the re-emergence of Hansen’s One Nation Party, and with it a strong
rekindling of Islamophobia, the very same welling or fears and anxieties which
resulted from the Cronulla race riots, and the emergence of the Australian
Curriculum: History (ACH).
This is what Beck, Giddens and others have labelled “reflexive democracy”.
These researchers would have it that the rise of Hansen’s One Nation Party, and
its accompanying Islamophobia came about, not because of the failure of the
ACH to offset racism in Australia, but because deeper problems with moder-
nity, its system of government and economy. In Beck’s [1997, 40] words: “This
is because of a belief in the parliamentary rule system is the answer to all tran-
sitoriness that modernity brings into the world”. Indeed, it is “where all the
securities of traditions, values and scientific truth is dissolved and replaced by
procedures, methods and modes of voting, it seems than an abyss is opening up
when these modes in turn become transitory and malleable” [Beck’s: 1997, 40]
Thus, according to risk society thinking, while issues surrounding Islamopho-
bia and racism in society, require a complete rethink, and not a single belief in,
for example, the nation’s school history curriculum to ameliorate the develop-
ing imbroglio, a discussion of which has been developed. As if ill-prepared and
poorly thought-out, voters respond to these national anxieties in varying ways.
In respect to environmental politics, Hajer and Kesselring [2007, 1] wrote:
“The realisation that we live in a ‘risk society’ often leads to a plea for enhanced
democratic rights [Beck: 1998/2006, 1997]. The assumption is that more
democratic procedures will help to control risks and achieve environmental
goals”. But this is not always the case. In order to restructure such socio-
political dysfunctions, Coote [1998, 125–126] has advanced the view that what
is required is a complete rethink about a relationship with politicians and influ-
ential experts: “The implications of the risk society for the conduct of public
policy-making is that we must grow up and develop an adult-to-adult relation-
ship with our politicians, as well as so-called ‘experts’”. Almost 20 years before
the election of US President Donald Trump and Australia’s Senator Pauline
Hanson, Coote [1998, 125–126] wrote of how the election of Berlusconi in
 The looming presence of risk society 33
Italy indicated an almost adolescent acceptance of the authority of some politi-
cians: “We are so thoroughly disgusted [with some existing] politicians that we
are prepared to give our vote to any oddball or fanatic so long he or she is not
a ‘normal’ politician”.

Analysis and conclusions

Perhaps, a stark reminder of the veracity of risk society thinking in its emer-
gence – soon transformed into political ideology, and indeed, into the school
curriculum – during the early 1970s was the drastic change in public attitudes
towards the damming of the Tasmanian wilderness. The “modern” nation state
began to look to alternatives other than continual “scientific development” as
depicted in the inside page of Russell Wards’s 1952 school history textbook
as illustrated in our Introduction. Beck, Giddens and others had trumpeted
that when modern societies reach a certain stage of evolution, they radicalise
themselves, transform themselves once again not only in respect to their key
institutions, but also the very principles of society. By the 1970s, British,
American and Australian societies – and indeed, many other so-called “devel-
oped” economies – were beginning to undergo profound changes, and school
education would soon be inextricably enmeshed in these developments.
Risk society imperatives, however, impacted on school education in vastly
more ways than environmental aspects. School education was about to respond to
these developments. While school education had long been the servant of politi-
cal ideology, during the decades following the 1970s, with the persuasive onset of
neoliberal economics and political ideology, and globalism, risk society impera-
tives would entangle school education into new and more elaborate purposes.

References
ABC News (2017). 7yo Australian boy missing after Barcelona attack, mum in hospital.
Retrieved 18 August 2017 from [Link]/news/.
Aron, R. (1968). Progress and disillusion: the dialectics of modern society. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Aspinall, R.W. (2014). Education and risk: The application of risk society theory to the study of
education systems in Europe, America and Asia. Discussion Paper No. A-11. (July). Center
for Risk Research, Faculty of Economics, Shiga University.
Beauchamp, Z. (2016). Brexit isn’t about economics. It’s about xenophobia. Vox (24 June).
Retrieved 18 September 2016 from [Link]/2016/6/23/12005814/brexit-eu-
referendum-immigrants.
Beck U. (1997). The reinvention of politics: rethinking politics in the global social order. (trans. Mark
Ritter). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1991/1995). Ecological enlightenment: essays on the politics of risk society (Trans. M.A.
Ritter). Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, NJ: Humanities Press.
Beck, U. (1992/2007. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Beck, U. (1998). Politics of risk society. In J. Franklin (Ed.) (1998). The politics of risk society.
Institute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London: Polity Press, pp. 12–63.
34 The looming presence of risk society
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society: A Hobhouse Memorial Public Lecture
given on Wednesday 15 February 2006 at the London School of Economics. Economy &
Society. 35(3), pp. 329–345.
Beck, U. (2015). Emancipatory catastrophism: what does it mean to climate change and risk
society? Current Sociology. 63(1). pp. 75–88.
Beck, U. (2016). The metamorphosis of the world: how climate change is transforming our concept of
the world. Cambridge: Polity.
Blakers, M. (ed) (2001), The Global Greens, Canberra. Retrieved 10 March 2018 from www.
[Link].
Boudia, S. & Nathalie, J. (2007). Risk and risk society in historical perspective. History and
Technology, 23(4), pp. 317–331.
Brown, B. & Singer, P. (1996). The Greens, Melbourne: Text Publishing.
Bruce, J. P. (1993). Challenges of the decade: natural disasters and climate change. In R.
Bras (ed.) The world at risk: natural hazards and climate change. AIP Conference Proceedings.
AIP: New York, pp. 94–129.
Coote, A. (1998). Risk and public policy: Towards a high-trust democracy. In J. Franklin
(Ed.). The politics of risk society. Institute for Public Policy Research (London, England).
London: Polity Press, pp. 121–154.
Culver, L. (2011). Historicising risk. In Lawrence Culver, L. et al (Eds) (2011). Revisiting
risk society: a conversation with Ulrich Beck. Munich: Rachel Carson Centre Perspectives.
Das, P.K. (2010). Climate change and education: Maldives. A project funded by UK aid from
the Department for International Development, London.
Davenport, C. (2016). Donald Trump could put climate change on course for “Danger
Zone”. New York Times (10 November). Retrieved 13 November 2016 from www.
[Link]/2016/11/11/us/politics/[Link].
Eid, M. (2003). Reflexive Modernity and Risk Society. International Journal of the Humani-
ties. 1, pp. 814–828.
Franklin J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Franklin (Ed.) (1998). The politics of risk society. Insti-
tute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London. Polity Press, pp. 4–20.
Giddens, A. (1998). Risk society: the context of British politics. In J. Franklin (Ed.) The
politics of risk society. Institute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London:
Polity Press, pp. 89–135.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile.
Gray, J. (1998). Nature bites back. In J. Franklin (Ed.) (1998). The politics of risk society. Insti-
tute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London. Polity Press.
Hajer, M. & Kesselring, S. (2007). Democracy in the risk society? Learning from the new
politics of mobility in Munich. Environmental Politics. 8(3). pp. 1–22.
Hay, P. (2002). Main currents of Western environment thought. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Iner, D. (ed.) (2017). Islamophobia in Australia. Retrieved 19 August 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2811960/csu-islamophobia-in-australia-July-
[Link] .
“I won’t back down over Islam”: Hanson to PM (2016). Sydney Morning Herald (16 July).
Retrieved 16 July 2016 from [Link]/federal-politics/political-news/i-wont-
[Link].
Iyengar, R. (2015). German sociologist who warned of the risks of technology dies at
70. Time. (5 January). Retrieved 5 January 2018 from [Link]
beck-sociologist-risk-society/.
Jarman, M. (2010). Climate change. In World at Risk: A global issues sourcebook (2nd ed.)
Washington, DC, CQ Press, pp. 299–320.
 The looming presence of risk society 35
Kincheloe, J. (1991). Educational historiographical meta-analysis: rethinking methodology
in the 1990s. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 4(3) pp. 231–245.
Lohrey, A. (2002a). Foreword [online]. Quarterly Essay. 8: pp. ix-x. Retrieved 20 September
2016 from <[Link]
res=IELLCC> ISSN: 1832–0953.
Lohrey, A. (2002b). Groundswell. Quarterly Essay, 8.
Matten, D. (2004). The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and man-
agement in a globalizing economy: principles, proficiency, perspectives. Journal of Risk
Research (June) 7 (4), pp. 377–398.
McCulloch, G. (2011). The struggle for the history of education, London/New York: Routledge.
McLaren, P. (1995). Introduction. In McLaren, P. (Ed.) Postmodernism, post-colonialism and
pedagogy, Albert Park, Vic.: James Nicholas Publishers, pp. 5–29.
Michel, A. (2001). Schools for an emerging new world. In OECD (Ed.), Schooling for
tomorrow: What schools for the future? Paris: OECD, pp. 65–109.
Milne, C. (n.d.) Green politics. The companion to Tasmanian history. Retrieved 1 September 2016
from [Link]/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/G/Green%[Link].
Morgan, M. & Zivic, M. (2017). Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt condemned and slammed
as “toxic”. SBS News (17 August). Retrieved 22 June 2018 from [Link]
[Link]/pauline-hanson-s-burqa-stunt-condemned-and-slammed-as-toxic.
Mollison, B. & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture One. Hobart: Tagari Publications.
Nisbet, R. (n.d.). Idea of progress: a bibliographical essay (n.d.). Online Library of Liberty.
Retrieved 2 September 2016 from [Link]
bibliographical-essay-by-robert-nisbet.
Now we’re out of the EU, we can bring back Britain’s other pound (2016). Opinion. The
Telegraph (29 August). Retrieved 17 October 2016 from [Link]/opinion/
2016/08/29/now-were-out-of-the-eu-we-can-bring-back-britains-other-pound/.
Palmer, J.A (1997). Beyond science: global imperatives for environmental education in the
21st century. In P.J. Thompson. Environmental education for the 21st century: international and
interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 97–149.
Plastic poisons in the food chain (2015). ISIS Report. Institute of Science in Society. (2 Feb-
ruary). Retrieved 14 October 2016 from [Link]/Plastic_Poisons_in_the_
Food_Chain.php.
Poguntke, T. (2005). Green parties in national governments: from protest to acquiescence.
In J.S. Dryzek, & D. Schlosber (Eds).) Debating the earth: the environmental politics reader
(2nd ed). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 89–141.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Moral panics impact school education. New York/London: Routledge.
Rodwell, G.W. (1997). Nature enthusiasm, social planning and eugenics in Australian state
schools, 1900–1920. Journal of Educational Administration and History. 29(1) pp. 1–19.
Thompson, K. (1997). Moral panics. London/New York: Routledge.
Tindale, S. (1998). Procrastination and global gamble. In J. Franklin (Ed.) The politics of risk
society. Institute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London: Polity Press,
pp. 46–87.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. London: Harvard University Press.
Vince, J. & Hardesty, B.D. (2016). Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environ-
ments: from local to global governance. Restoration Ecology. pp. 1–6.
Vitali, A. (2016). In his words: Donald Trump on the Muslim ban, deportations. NBC News
(27 June). Retrieved 29 June 2016 from [Link]/politics/2016-election/
his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901.
Yanitsky, O. (2012). Russian environmentalism: the Yanitsky reader. TAUS: Moscow.
2 Risk society theory arrives

Introduction
Long before Beck coined the term “risk society”, and people began to give it
currency, there was ample evidence of its impact on a range of socio-political-
economic policies, which were beginning to be translated into school educa-
tion policy. Despite some apparently obvious outward signs, risk society theory
is not necessarily synonymous with globalisation and neoliberalism, more the
inexhaustible pressures of modernity. However, admittedly now increasingly
these are being combined with the relentless pressures globalism and neoliber-
alism asserts on the old industrial societies and economies.
In this chapter we will learn of how Beck [1992/2007] postulated society
as being on the edge – catastrophes at every turn, “Chernobles” and “Fuka-
sheemas”, pandemics and rapidly developing climate change, polluted oceans
with the civilisation’s garbage – plastics – and we might add to that list global
financial crises (GFCs). Beck’s view of risk society, indeed, was essentially cata-
strophic; we are living on the “volcano of civilization” in which exceptional
conditions threaten to become the norm – it is as if a “Fukasheema”, or per-
haps a worst-case scenario of a worldwide swiftly increasing climate change,
along with uncertain political times exemplified his understanding of risk soci-
ety. Further, witness revolving doors in political leadership, with its perceived
associated chaos, and a vastly increased percentage of swinging voters, and mas-
sive national polls installing the most unforeseen results, many of which bring
challenges to globalisation and associated paradigms.
Beck (1992/2007) also, however, taught us to understand risk construction
as a practice of manufacturing particular uncertainties that may have harmful
consequences to “life” in the broadest sense of the term – for example, crops
and herds contaminated by GM, ocean and seafood contaminated by plas-
tics, and in school education such issues as diverse as childhood obesity and
sexuality education. Here, media plays an integral role. Drawing on the work
of Castel [1991, 287], Petersen [1997, 193] made a relevant observation here
concerning risk: “A risk does not arise from the presence of a particular precise
danger embodied in a concrete individual or group. It is the effect of a com-
bination of abstract factors which render more or less probable the occurrence
 Risk society theory arrives 37
of undesirable modes of behaviour (emphasis in original)”. In this respect,
contributing factors are associated with, for example, childhood obesity or
challenges to sexuality norm – all defined and constructed by the media.

The terms “risk society” is coined

Highlighting the growing concern for the risk society, by the 1990s, the notion
of risk forecasting and management had become big international business,
with international corporates such as the Eurasia Group training hundreds of
people in forecasting and managing risk. Founded in 1998, for example, this
group offered executive education providing “decision-makers with the essen-
tial tools needed to understand and anticipate the impact of political develop-
ments on their businesses” [Executive education: n.d., n.p.].
The term “risk society” is associated closely with several key writers on
modernity, in particular, with Beck (1944–2015) focusing his research on ques-
tions of uncontrollability, ignorance and uncertainty in the modern age, and
coining the terms “risk society”, “second modernity”, and “reflexive mod-
ernization” [Kaldor & Selchow: 2015]. A major research drive was to overturn
national perspectives predominating sociological investigations with a cosmo-
politanism, acknowledging the interconnectedness of the modern world. He
was a professor at the University of Munich, also holding appointments at the
Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (FMSH) in Paris, and at the London
School of Economics, where he formed a renowned partnership with Profes-
sor Anthony Giddens, one-time Director of the London School of Economics,
and currently Emeritus Professor at the Department of Sociology [Beck: 2014].
The term “risk society” was coined in the 1980s, with its popularity begin-
ning during the 1990s, and was both as a consequence of its links to trends in
thinking about wider modernity, and also to its links to popular discourse, in
particular the growing environmental concerns, such as climate change and
GM food during the period. There also was an array of policy in school educa-
tion at a national level where, in line with societal anxieties, policymakers hold
fears for what the future holds, a preoccupation with an uncertain future. Beck
[2006] highlighted the often sheer irrationality of the politics of risk society.

Risk society theory as a social construct

It is not possible to wander about society locating risk society in a physical sense.
We actually cannot see risk society, but we can see political, social, economic,
educational and so on, phenomena, that can be explained by risk society theory.
Risk society is a social construct; it is not a thing. A social construct is called a
heuristic device, more specifically, an ideal type. The great German sociologist
Max Weber originally developed the concept of ideal type [Critcher: 2003, 2].
For example, in explaining the meaning of moral panics – another social
construct – Critcher [2003: 2] posited: “Weber argued that all social scientists
38 Risk society theory arrives
used ideal types. These were not ‘ideal’ in the usual sense of desirable but ideal in
the logical sense”. To use Weber’s own example, Critcher [2003, 2] explained:
“The perfect ‘market economy’ has never existed but we can construct what
it would look like if it were carried to its logical conclusion”. This provides
a theoretical yardstick. The ideal type is “‘not an end but a means’, most use-
ful ‘as an heuristic device for the comparison reasons of the ideal type and the
facts’” [Weber: 1949, 92, cited in Critcher: 2003, 2]. Similar social constructs
are social capital, cultural capital, financial capital, symbolic capital and moral
panics. None of these “things” we actually see, but we can detect evidence of
the particular phenomenon that can be explained by the relevant theory.
Along with the social media, the general mass media are significant actors
involved in the social construction of risk. Early in the history of the impact
of social risk theory on nations, researchers were looking to how the main-
stream media socially constructs risk [Mazur: 1981; Short: 1984; Gamson, &
Modigliani: 1989; Stallings: 1990]. While considering the role of the media
in the social construction of risk, and general portrayal of risk, along with the
emerging social media, it is sufficient at this stage of our study to state this role
is neither trivial nor decisive. By selecting events upon which to report, by
interviewing and quoting experts who interpret those events, and by assem-
bling and distributing news products, news organisations, and the media gener-
ally, create an important component and general sense of immediacy in public
discourse, often referred to as “media discourse”. The relationship between
news accounts and the social construction of risk through public discourse is
complex, problematic and forever in a state of development, as new forms of
media impact society, creating anxieties. The rising influence of dog-whistle
journalism and politics is one example of this.
In both its macro- and micro-form, of course, and with the notion of risk
being socially and culturally constructed, researchers were analysing this before
Beck’s and Gidden’s major works were published. “Risks to health, safety, and
the environment abound in the world and people cope as best as they can”
[Johnson & Covello: 1987, vii]. With multiple nuances, school education is
a principal site of these developments, both in terms micro- and macro-risks:
for example, witness, policies on the use of social media in school education,
mostly reflecting state and national legislation. The media in all its forms plays a
vital role in this process in terms of agenda-setting, group conflict and the social
construction of risk [Sharlin: 1987].

Social class, and socio-economic change in risk

society theory
Increasingly, during the period of the late 1980s onwards in the US, Aus-
tralia, the UK and a vast array of other countries, there has been a popular
assertion there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor. Generally, the
narrative runs: “The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other
advanced country, but most people are unconcerned. . . . Europeans fret about
 Risk society theory arrives 39
the way the economic pie is divided, Americans want to join the rich, not
soak them. . . . It is a central part of the American Dream” [Inequality in
America: 2006, n.p.]. Indeed, “the political consensus, therefore, has sought to
pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping
with John Kennedy’s adage that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. The tide has been
rising fast recently” [Inequality in America: 2006, n.p.]. The Economist in its
2006 “Inequality in America” article argued: “thanks to a jump in productiv-
ity growth after 1995, America’s economy has outpaced other rich countries
for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work
than 10 years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though
incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers’ wages far outpaced inflation”
[Inequality in America: 2006, n.p.]. The Economist article, however, was written
in 2006 – only a short time before the GFC, which severely impaired national
growth, and shook the nations’ confidence in social and economic progress.
At first, the full ramifications of the GFC were little understood. Witness
how Head of Financial Stability Department at The Reserve Bank of Australia,
Luci Ellis, spoke to an audience at the Victoria University of Technology of
what was at first called a “sub-prime crisis”, then later “financial turmoil”, and
finally labelled “the Global Financial Crisis” [Ellis: 2009, n.p.]. For her, “many
financial systems around the world have been under extraordinary strain for
the past year and a half. The macroeconomic and human consequences of that
crisis are becoming all too clear” [Ellis: 2009, n.p.]. Inter alia, she asked: “. . . are
there any countermeasures that governments and other policy-makers can take,
to reduce the costs of the present crisis, and to prevent a recurrence?” [Ellis:
2009, n.p.]. As she concluded: “. . . you can’t borrow your way to a good time
forever, and this recent example of a credit-fuelled boom was no exception.
The first signs of trouble were in the US mortgage market” [Ellis; 2009, n.p.]
How does all of this fit with risk society theory? These notions of class
inequalities blew out in the 1980s, and “resurgent capitalist ideology in the
mass media and the academia began to expound opposite perspectives, with
an unprecedented disregard for facts” claimed Jakopovich [2014, 2]. By the
second decade of the 21st century, “extreme wealth and power is concentrated
in the hands of capitalist organisations and individuals like Bill Gates, whose
‘net worth’ of $50 billion in 2009 was greater than the GDP of 140 countries”
[Blankfeld: 2009, cited in Jakopovich: 2014, 2].
Moreover, Westergaard [1996, 141, cited in Jakopovich: 2014, 2] asserted:

While rich and poor have grown further apart, both predominant ideology
and social theory have set out to dismiss this; or to argue that it does not
matter anyway. If we are to believe the commentators, politicians and aca-
demic theorists who have set this tone in the current debate, class inequal-
ity has lost social, moral and political force.

“In reality”, claimed Jakopovich [2014, 2], “class relations and class locations
most often crucially determine both individual life chances and the functioning
40 Risk society theory arrives
of social institutions”. Clearly, before we dig more deeply into risk society
theory, we need to examine Beck’s ideas on social class during what is now
clear, the massive social and economic times in which they formulated and
expounded their theory of risk society, all of which will be necessary in devel-
oping an understanding of how risk society impacts on school education.
Beck [1992/2007, 13] explained how traditional industrial notions of social
class is ruptured with the inexhaustible pressures of modernity and globalism
on the old industrial society and economies: “Unlike the factory-related or
occupational hazards of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth cen-
turies, these can no longer be limited to certain localities or groups, but rather
exhibit a tendency to globalization which spans production and reproduction
as much as national borders”. All of this is manifest in “supra-national and non-
class specific global hazards with a new type of social and political dynamism”
(emphasis in original). Thus, for Beck [1992/2007], modernity rips asunder
social class and social relations of older industrial societies. These were societies
responsible for the provision of public school education during the late 19th
century. Clearly, risk society theory would have it that school education under-
went, and indeed continues to undergo massive changes, based on entirely
changed notions of social class and socio-economic relations, producing these
“social hazards”.
The “immanent contradictions between modernity and counter-modernity
within industrial society” brings with it massive changes to the socio-economic
order, and obviously with it the nature and purpose of school education [Beck:
1992/2007, 13]. For Beck [1992/2007, 13],

On the one hand, industrial society is planned as an extended group society

in the sense of a class or stratified society yesterday, today and for the entire
future. On the other hand, classes remain reliant on the validity of social
class cultures and traditions, which in the course of postwar development are
the process of losing their traditional culture (emphasis in original).

It was upon these social class cultures and traditions that public school edu-
cation was built. With risk society so firmly challenging them, what would
follow?

Essential components of risk society theory

Adam and van Loon [2000, 2] insisted on drawing attention to “the ‘con-
structed nature’ of risk”, indicating “a paradox as the vernacular usage of
‘nature’ implies an essence that comes before all constructions. This apparent
paradox, however, must be fully appreciated” [Adam & van Loon: 2000, 2].
The plastics in seafood moral panic informs us much on this aspect of risk
society theory: “As much as 12.7m metric tons of plastic enter the world’s
oceans each year. According to the World Economic Forum, by 2050 there
could be more plastic in the sea than fish. . . . But it’s less clear what the end
 Risk society theory arrives 41
result might be for human health. [The plastic is] breaking down into increas-
ingly microplastic particles and creating an unsightly mess: it’s also getting eaten
by marine life” [Oksman: 2016, n.p.]. Is the risk real, or simply a potential risk?
For Adam and van Loon [2000, 2], “the essence of risk is not that it’s hap-
pening, but that it might be happening” (emphasis in original). They argued:
“Risks are manufactured, not only through the application of technologies,
but also in the making of sense and by the technological sensibility of a poten-
tial harm, danger or threat”. Here again, the moral panics associated with the
looming dangers of ruined marine habitats through plastic pollutions, care-
lessly deposited perhaps thousands of kilometres away, poses dreadful risks and
associated moral panics. “One cannot, therefore, observe a risk as a thing-out-
there – risks are necessarily constructed” [Adam & van Loon: 2000, 2].
Finally, risks are revealed in their construction as they are fed by the media
in its various forms, and by vested political and commercial interests. But we
know commercial interests can change rapidly. This assists in explaining the
decline of the perceived risk in school education, for example, associated with
repetitive strain injury (RSI) and its associated moral panics which swept across
offices, schools and colleges during the 1980s when screen-based work through
computers was materialising [Rodwell: 2017].
According to Beck [1995], historically, the welfare state protected societies,
but at the same time changed social relationships, in part providing individu-
als with greater choice and freedoms, and “in part insulating them from the
vestiges of personal risk”, but also laying them bare in times of crises [Jarvis:
n.d., 6]. Benefitting with improved educational and career opportunities, indi-
viduals became more mobile and “relocation through globalized work prac-
tices and migration, modernist-industrial based institutions like the nuclear
family are now threatened” by the vagaries of the risk society, often associated
with moral panics [Jarvis, n.d., 6].
Much of what is termed moral panic is, in fact, a manifestation of risk soci-
eties. Indeed, “social anxieties raise the basic issue of safety” [Ungar: 2001,
272]. Historically, discourse of safety contained risk: witness historically state-
sponsored eugenic campaigns, where various bourgeois and professional groups
pressured governments to contain society’s perceived dysgenic elements, such
as precocious working class girls [Rodwell: 2017, 32, 38, 53, 70–72].
Worsening the situation, and at the same time feeding anxieties concern-
ing risk is the fact governments are often reactive, rather than proactive, to
societies wherein risks are obvious and approaching: take, for example, the
manner in which some governments have prepared for climate change, with
its accompanying severe weather cycles – tropical storms, hurricanes, floods
and so on. Drawing on Beck’s [1995] research, Ungar [2001, 128] argued with
this case, and “the accumulation of other comparable manufactured risks, the
idea institutions connote safety is severely challenged”. Risk is often about
failed government policy: witness, the Tasmanian HEC policy during the
1970s. For Beck [1995], the political dynamism of the political ecological issue
comes from governments on the one hand claiming to provide safety from the
42 Risk society theory arrives
vagaries of, say GM food production, but on the other through political elites,
moral provocateurs and moral entrepreneurs claiming devastation from risks is
normalised, and supported by legislation.
Consequently, for researchers such as Ungar [2001, 273] the notion of the
risk society subsumes the moral panic paradigm, and “issues of trust, expertise
and authority, the fallibility of science, the nature of (once hidden) institutional
practices, the threat of immobility and, ultimately, the affirmation of social
order” are challenged severely. These issues have enormous consequence for
the way in which risk society impacts school education.
Beck [2009, 121] wrote how Giddens used “the concept of ‘trust’ to explain
the relation between the internal dynamics of systems and human influence”.
Indeed,

Whereas the relations between people and their environment in traditional

social systems were determined by standardized rules of behaviour and
action that guaranteed something like an ontological security, all that is
left to members of modern society is the hope that the functional systems
might fulfil expectations.
[Beck: 2009, 121]

Yet, the media continually feed stories of the fragility and instability of it all,
increasing with the snowballing dynamism reflexivity of modern society. A
stark example of this occurring in school education comes with the obvious
trust society places in its institutions which permitted generations upon gen-
erations of young people to walk or to cycle to school unattended by adults (a
topic discussed further in Chapter 2). Now, increasingly governments mandate
an adult accompany children to school – typically primary school children.
This is an action bringing with it further consequences for governments –
increased traffic on roads, and increased child obesity. Trust is further chal-
lenged, and risk further constructed.

Risk society theory challenged

Risk society is peppered with ironies: “The ignorance of the globalization of
risk increases the globalization of risk” [Beck: 2006, 330]. To illustrate his point
concerning not only the sheer irony of risk society theory, but also its utter
vagaries, Beck [2006] used the example of the horrors of “9/11”, the Sep-
tember 2001 terrorist attack on New York’s Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and
attempts on the White House, despite having a multi-billion dollar national
missile defence screen – the horrific attack came from another direction.
Clearly, it is difficult to isolate national risks at every turn, and the difficulties
associated with pinpointing them simply exaggerates the risk.
Researchers such as Stewart [2001] and Lukes [1974/2005] have criticised
Giddens’s writings on reflexivity, focusing on his relative neglect of power.
Thus, “is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to
 Risk society theory arrives 43
have the desires you want them to have – that is, to secure their compliance by
controlling their thoughts and desires” [Lukes: 1974/2005, 23, cited in Stewart:
2001, 32]. However, there are no better sites than school education to achieve
that. Lukes’ [1974/2005] and Stewart’s [2001] concerns, however, are argu-
ments for sociologists. Our task, inter alia, is to bring into focus some historical
explanation of the impact of risk society thinking on school education.
Adding to Lukes’ [1974/2005] and Stewart’s [2001] concerns, and argu-
ing from a sociological/philosophical standpoint, Bagguley [2003, 133] con-
tended Giddens’ recent writings on reflexivity and modernity developed since
the 1970s fundamentally contradict the underlying paradigm of agency and
structure – specifically the duality of structure. And in doing so: “They have
overlooked the emerging contradictions with his overall analysis of agency and
structuration”. For critics such as Archer [1982], Mouzelis [2001] and Bag-
guley [2003], so central to risk society theory, reflexive modernisation is beset
with inherent difficulties of dualism: “The analysis of late modernity and self-
reflexivity requires recognition of the temporal non-correspondence of struc-
ture and agency that is not possible under the assumptions of structuration
theory” [Bagguley: 2003, 133].

Perspectives on risk and risk society theory

Webb [2006] illuminated how there is strong distinction between the realist
and the social constructivist perspectives on risk. This divide illustrates tensions
between a scientific approach to risk and a social and cultural studies perspec-
tive. Completely side-stepping any notion of a scientific approach to risk soci-
ety theory, Beck [2006, 336] asserted: “risk definition, essentially, is a power
game”, and “is especially true for world risk society where Western govern-
ments or powerful economic actors define risk for others”. He was especially
critical of any notions of “the ‘mathematicized morality’ of expert thinking and
public discourse on ‘risk profiling’”. The act of defining risk is all about values
and ideological points of view, and certainly not something that lends itself to
quantifiable research.
We have also seen how Beck’s concept of risk society has gained significant
mileage in the way he has tried to contrast contemporary aspects of politics
with previous periods of industrial and even advanced capitalist society in terms
of risk. Now, “risk exposure is replacing class as the principal inequality of
modern society, because of how risk is reflexively defined by actors: in risk
society relations of definition are to be conceived analogous to Marx’s relations
of production” [Beck: 2006, 336]. These inequalities of definition enable pow-
erful actors to maximise risks for “others” and minimise risks for “themselves”
[Beck: 2006, 336].
In yet another perspective on risk society theory, Webb [2006] described
how Furedi [1997/2006] concurred how we live in risk-obsessive societies.
His diagnosis, however, is very different from the liberal-conservative view
expressed by Beck. Furedi [1997/2006] claimed our risk aversion culture has
44 Risk society theory arrives
developed to such an extent, and is based on the way the media and politicians
represent the nature of harms and threats. Elsewhere, I argue this is often in the
form of moral panics, which at times dominate school educational policy and
practice [Rodwell: 2017].
Webb [2006, n.p.] observed for Furedi [1997/2006], society no longer
expects people “to rise above adversity or encouraged to get on with their lives
after they experience setbacks”. Instead, they are victims “‘scarred for life’ and
perpetually ‘haunted’ by risk and misfortune”. Risk assessments, and safety and
security come to dominate institutionalised thinking and “societal mentality
about risk, often acquiring a ‘pseudo-moral’ connotation as in ‘safe spaces’,
‘safe medicine’, ‘safe sex’”, and we might add, safe schools. Here, Furedi
[1997/2006] offered a personal story to illustrate his point concerning insti-
tutionalised obsessiveness with risk. When he took his son to his new school,
the principal told him, “Don’t worry, our number-one priority is your child’s
safety”. Furedi responded: “I was hoping it was teaching him to read and write
and do maths”. Moreover, for example, people do not become obese on their
own account: society and its institutions does this to them. School education
is in the firing line. All of this led Furedi [1997/2006] to label this mentality a
“blame culture”, whereby complaints and litigation dominate people’s think-
ing, prompting people, institutions and society generally to speculate constantly
about possible future harms. All of this in school education requires a new level
of managerialism, and in Chapter 8 this book will revisit this proposition. But
for now, we may conclude this is a recipe for social and economic paralysis and
low moral expectations [Furedi: 1997/2006].
Supporting Furedi’s [1997/2006] findings, and drawing on teacher and stu-
dent learning practices in three school sites in south-east Queensland, Hardy
[2015, 375] “revealed how specific tests, packages and programmes have been
employed as technologies of governance to minimise the risk of adverse stu-
dent behaviour, maximise student outcomes on standardised tests, and provide
teachers with discrete learning experiences construed as improving such out-
comes”. Consequently, education was constructed as being “an increasingly
‘risky business’”, employing “a myriad of products and tests to manage per-
ceived and actual risks” [Hardy: 2015, 375]. Indeed, now “these products and
processes constitute student misbehaviour and inadequate teacher and student
learning as ‘risk objects’ requiring constant intervention, but which also inhibit
inclusion in schooling settings, and challenge teachers’ professionalism” [Hardy:
2015, 375].
Webb [2006] further explained another category of risk society researchers:
this is the neoliberal focussed group, writers who have been influenced by the
various writings of Michel Foucault. Rose [2009, 321] reckoned his research,
“suggest[s] we are in the midst of a shift into a radically novel epoch, whether
this is a post-disciplinary society, an electronic panopticon . . . actuarial justice
or a society of control”. Because these ideas reek of older notions of social
control in the history of school education, these are attractive notions for the
subject matter of this book, and we shall attend to them in proceeding chapters.
 Risk society theory arrives 45
Constructionism, Foucault and governmentality
and the analysis of risk
Throughout these pages, we have frequently insisted risk society is a social
construct, but we may well ask: “constructed by whom and is whose interests”?
One way to approach this question is to compare the interventionist national
government during the 1970s and the way in which they introduced various
educational policies, especially those connected with compensatory education
in the interests of social equity: an essential mode of thinking here was social
development through the educational development of the individual. Hence,
in Australia the Whitlam Labour Government (1972–1975) legislated to make
the nation’s universities free to all who qualified for entry. Compare that with
the way in which current neoliberal national governments in the US, the UK
and Australia develop educational policy, not necessarily in respect to social
equity, but with national risk management as an essential driving criterion.
Indeed, universities constantly monitor students’ perceptions of how university
administrations care for risk management:

. . . high fees and contact with teachers positively influence the experi-
ence, while the growing number of part-time teachers, the fundamental
tension between teaching obligations and the need to perform in the RAE
[Research Assessment Exercise] unfold a negative impact; also class size and
career structure for students shape the student’s expectations.
[Huber: 2011, 11]

At the same time, universities provide student teachers with training in risk
management for their careers in schools and colleges.
Through their various national educational administrative/advisory bod-
ies, national governments seek advice on national risk. In constructionist/
Foucauldian terms, Miller [2008, 262–263] explained this change in the direc-
tion of policy development by nation states in these terms:

Neoliberal governmentality is not the disappearance of state power but

rather its dispersion into new social sites, and the responsibilized actor,
though cloaked in the “appearance of freedom is nevertheless an effect –
an artefact – of the larger apparatus of power that is the governmentalized
state”.

Following research by Ericson and Haggerty [1997], with the advent of risk
society imperatives, traditional governmental roles, such as those of the police,
and quasi-governmental agencies, such as those of community health centres.
For example, Miller [2008, 263] argued: “Now [community health centres]
become information brokers and community advisers on risk and its manage-
ment”. A new breed of policy bureaucrats has emerged. Witness graduates
such as those educated at the Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation,
46 Risk society theory arrives
London School of Economics and Political Science cited above in the Huber
[2011] research paper. These are the “risk professionals”, who now have a role
with governments in making “risks more visible and to advise and instruct on
their management” [O’Malley, 1998, 139, as cited in Miller: 2008, 263]. An
example being, the changing role of various national educational policy bodies
in the US, the UK and Australia, such as Australia’s AITSL. This, in turn, gave
rise to global organisations such as The Global Risks Report, which for 2016,

Feature[d] perspectives from nearly 750 experts on the perceived impact

and likelihood of 29 prevalent global risks over a 10-year timeframe. The
risks [were] divided into five categories: economic, environmental, geopo-
litical, societal and technological.
The report also examine[d] the interconnections among the risks, and
through that analysis explores three areas where global risks have the
greatest potential to impact society. These are the concept of the “(dis)
empowered citizen”, the impact of climate change on food security, and
the potential of pandemics to threaten social cohesion . . .
[Global Risks Report: 2016, n.p.]

Webb [2006] maintained, collectively, the works of Lupton [1999], Hutter and
Power (eds) [2005], O’Malley [1998], Haggery and Ericson [2005], and Eric-
son, and Haggery [1997] developed a perspective on risk that relates to the
effects of neoliberal political rule, with a particular focus on aspects of “govern-
mentality”. In neoliberal societies risk is increasingly privatised and constructed
as a feature of the “entrepreneurial self ”. As Culpitt [1999, 117] contended,
“neoliberalism creates the climate of risk in order to justify its overall politics”.
Neoliberalism seeks to dismantle the welfare state, and until such times that all
welfare is privatised, it installs “command and control” regulative policies on
social work in order to monitor and control its activities. The resultant effect
is the development of what Hutter and Power [2005] described as an “audit
society” in which performance, accountability, quality control and transpar-
ency becomes key elements of risk regulation in social work. Again, this latter
idea has particular resonance for this book, and is elucidated in greater detail
in later chapters when we examine how governments have contrived national
systems to audit and control student learning and teacher preparation – surely,
the electronic or digital panopticon. This is a notion detailed with erudition
in respect to testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy in the con-
text of commensurate global and national developments [Lingard, Martino, &
Rezai-Rashti: 2013].
In an era of polluted agriculture and pastoralism through GM manipulation,
and marine life polluted plastics, Culpitt [1999, 112] looked to Beck [1995, 69]
who declared: “The overwhelming feature of the age is not physical – the
threat of annihilation – but social: the fundamental and scandalous way in
which the institutions, almost without exception, fail it”. The notion of “prog-
ress” becomes much disturbed.
 Risk society theory arrives 47
The anxieties associated with GM foods can be managed with national
frameworks, but what about the sheer mass of plastics floating semi-submerged
in the world’s oceans? Where are the international bodies which might be able
to put international measures in place to prevent marine life – so vitally impor-
tant as a food source for so many countries – being so terribly contaminated?
Indeed, the outcomes here are “all a lottery”. In fact, “although it may be pos-
sible to speak of the ‘environment’ at the levels of an individual company, such
talks become fictitious at the level of the economy as a whole, because here
a type of ‘Russian roulette’ is actually being played with the ‘environment’”
[Beck: 1995, 69].

The troubled notion of progress

“What if there is no historical progress?” asks the renowned American jour-
nalist, William Pfaff. “What if there is no reason to think the future will be no
better than the present – or worse, no better than the past?” [Pfaff: 1995/1996,
41]. While perhaps, many British people may have taken some time to con-
sider the proposition, certainly, that was not a remote consideration for most
Australians or Americans in the 1950s, and they would have dismissed it as
rubbish.
Growing up in postwar rural Australia, with its baby boom mentality,
almost nil unemployment and apparent material “progress” brought on by
pastoralism – “riding on the sheep’s back” – the very idea that one day soci-
ety would be questioning the very notion of progress seemed utterly absurd.
It seemed that it was all there for the taking: if there was a creek that needed
damming for stock, then dam it, with little regard to its importance in flowing
into the Murray-Darling rivers system; if it moved, shoot it for dog food –
kangaroos, wallabies, wombats, the lot; if it stood as vegetation, and that land
was needed for more stock, then bulldoze it down. If any precious Australian
fauna such as wedge-tailed eagles and dingoes threatened livestock, then simply
eliminate these so-called “pests”. And none of this “progress” required refer-
ence to governments. It was just like Hollywood’s portrayal of the Wild West.
And if all of that did not register as progress in the popular mind, there were
such national ventures as the Snowy Mountain Scheme further to remind us
of our marvellous national progress [Cannon: 1966]. Added to this, of course,
were school textbooks such as we have seen with Ward [1952] in the Introduc-
tion to this book extolling the virtues of modernity.
“The idea of unitary progress is battered and broken”, wrote De Benoit
[2008, 15]. Now, “no one believes any longer that material progress makes
man better, or that progress in one domain is automatically reflected in the rest”
[De Benoit, 2008, 15]. Indeed, “it is granted that, along with its advantages,
there are costs. It is quite evident that unplanned urbanization multiplies social
pathologies and that industrial modernization results in an unprecedented deg-
radation of the natural framework of life” [De Benoit: 2008, 15]. The creation
and support for the Australian Greens are manifest proof in popular support for
48 Risk society theory arrives
the notion that immense destruction of the environment brings with it eco-
logical movements, with increasing political clout, and a general questioning
of the assumption of understanding that “more” is synonymous with “better”.
For those who remain believers in progress, it is as if these members of society-
at-large look to and accept the notion of progress as a protective mechanism
to shield them from the vagaries and terrors of the future, and in this sense it
connects with risk society imperatives.

Progress and historiography

A decade or so before Aron [1968] (cited in the previous chapter) wrote his
work, Whig historians from the West were writing their accounts of the tri-
umph of the Allies over the Axis powers, and at the same time many of them
conveniently forgetting the sacrifices made by the Soviets, and moreover, often
exaggerating or, indeed, lying about their own achievements. At least that was
until the revisionist got to work on this account of history.
During the 1950s and 1960s British and American points of view in history
dominated the content in the school curriculum: for example, the causes of
the World War II. For me, as a secondary school student in New South Wales
during the 1960s, a dominant and influential text was Winston Churchill’s The
Second World War (1948–1953). In his six-volume history of the conflict that
appeared between 1948 and 1953, Churchill established the accepted inter-
pretation of the origins of the World War II: that Hitler launched a war of
conquest. Rossi [2002, 1634] stated:

In 1950, Time magazine, then at the height of its power and influence,
named Winston Churchill “Man of the Half Century”. His reputation
was at a peak because of his leadership of the Allied cause in World War II
and his role in alerting the Free World to the threat of Communism by his
“Iron Curtain” speech in early 1946.

Perhaps, the apex of his career came with his being awarded the 1953 Nobel
Prize in Literature, “for his mastery of historical and biographical description
as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values” [The Nobel
Prize in Literature 1953: n.d., n.p.]. During the following several decades,
many historians began to consider the award was highly politicised, and should
be thought of as more of a Cold War gesture directed at Josef Stalin and his
Soviet Union. But, still, was there any merit in the award in the sense of
Churchill’s historical writings?
But what did Time magazine write about Churchill 60 years later? In a
review article headed, “The ugly Briton: a scholarly account of Churchill’s
role in the Bengal Famine leaves his reputation in tatters”, Tharoor reviewed
Madhustree Mukerjee’s new book, Churchill’s secret war [Time: 2010, 43]. The
review article is a revisionist account of many things to do with literature and
history, not least, of the changing attitudes of Time magazine to India.
 Risk society theory arrives 49
Why the change? For one thing, the global balance of economic power
has moved decidedly in India’s favour during the past several decades. India’s
role as a prominent trading partner with the US, and that country’s emerging
economic power, is now significant. Tharoor [2010, 43] wrote: “Churchill said
that history would judge him kindly because he intended to write it himself ”.
After all, Churchill coined the phrase, “history is written by the victors”.
Clearly, Tharoor [2010] is far less enthusiastic about Churchill’s multi-
volume history of World War II than were my History teachers back in the
1960s. She wrote: “The self-serving but elegant volumes he authored . . . led
to the Nobel committee, unable in all conscience to bestow him an award for
peace, to give him, astonishingly, the Nobel prize for literature – an unwitting
tribute to the fictional qualities inherent in Churchill’s self-justifying embellish-
ments” [Tharoor: 2010, 43]. As if ravenous jackals, revisionist historians were
now gathering around the Churchill “carcass”.
Six years earlier, Reynolds had published In command of history: Churchill
fighting and writing the Second World War, detailing the composition and cir-
cumstances in which Churchill received his Nobel Prize for Literature. How
did the critics respond to this publication? Boot [2005, n.p.] wrote in the New
York Times: “Reynolds thoroughly exposes Churchill’s revisions of history . . .
memoirs are inevitably self-serving”.
Churchill’s was not the only historical “carcass” the revisionist historians
were working over at this time. Nothing was sacred, nothing left untouched.
The literary world was changing rapidly. Society was changing. Much of what
governments portrayed as being progress was a hoax, a self-serving tale written
“by the victors”.

Risk society theory defined

The above historical detail is an index to confirming society’s emerging gen-
eral anxiety for the future, and is central to the notion of the risk society. This
notion emerged during the 1980s as a response to observations concerning
how societies organised in response to risks. Defined by British sociologist,
Giddens, the risk society is “a society increasingly preoccupied with the future
(and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk” [Giddens: 1999, 89].
Whilst Beck [1992: 21] defined it as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards
and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself ”.
Beck’s and Giddens’ approach to the risk society theory is firmly from the
perspective of modernity: “A shorthand term for modern society or industrial
civilization . . . modernity is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of
social order. It is a society . . . which unlike any preceding culture lives in the
future rather than the past” [Giddens: 1999, 94]. Moreover, it is immediate in
its international impacts. Indeed, “no one fully understands”, but for Giddens
[1999] and others, globalism is having a powerful effect on the emerging risk
society thinking of the 21st century, and feeding dramatically into the changing
nature of moral panics.
50 Risk society theory arrives
Whereas pre-industrial societies were subject to risks such as weather and
industrial pollution, now risks depend on industrial and political decisions, and
are, therefore, “politically reflexive” [Beck: 1992, 29]. Moreover, the con-
cept of Beck’s risk society is linked intrinsically to the concept of reflexivity.
Beck contends that reflexivity is an unintended consequence of the risks of
modernity, and is the process of modernity questioning and critiquing its own
practices. Therefore, risk society is the “reflexive modernisation” of industrial
society, where “reflexive modernisation” means self-confrontation with the
effects of risk society that cannot be dealt with and assimilated in the system of
industrial society. In respect to school education, some obvious examples, inter
alia, are national curricular and system-wide standardised testing regimes. This
study, however, will devote more to that in later chapters.

Trust, risk society and nations

A feature of the 2016 presidential campaign was Republican candidate, Donald
Trump’s use of the phrase “fake news”. Its usage suggested a gross loss of faith
and even distrust in the nation’s media. In fact, 25 years earlier researchers were
looking to issues associated with trust in risk society. While danger is real, risk
is socially constructed. Moreover, risk assessment is inherently subjective and
represents a blending of science and judgement with important psychological,
social, cultural and political factors. Additionally, a nation’s social and demo-
cratic institutions have come to be seen as increasingly breeding distrust in the
risk arena, not least a nation’s media [Slovic: 1997]. As Trump’s many refer-
ences to “fake news” during the presidential campaign reminded us, defining
risk is thus an exercise in power.
Responding to growing national concerns regarding trust in risk society
and gaining increased national attention is the annual publication by the public
relations company, Edelman, which releases its “Trust Barometer”, highlight-
ing how people feel about various institutions, companies and even professions.
This is simply one of a number of surveys holding a mirror up to society and
delving into the trust we have in others. “What is common throughout these
various surveys is that trust in institutions, whether government, corporate or
religious, is plummeting. Whilst our trust in institutions is plummeting, our
trust in other individuals seems to be soaring” [Gaskell: 2017, n.p]. In fact,
national mistrust has reached proportions whereby “we’re more likely to trust
recommendations from our peers for everything from news to holidays, whilst
the so called sharing economy appears to be flourishing tremendously, due in
no small part to the way such platforms facilitate trusting relationships between
participants” [Gaskell: 2017, n.p].
How do schools figure in this increasing national distrust of institutions? In
an interesting connection to Rose’s [2009] digital surveillance thesis – his digi-
tal panopticon – detailed in greater detail in the following chapter, the push by
for the Australian Principals Federation for the installation of CCTV cameras
in all state school foyers was just another index to this increasing distrust. “This
 Risk society theory arrives 51
comes as no surprise because many countries are increasingly using surveillance
equipment in schools to tackle all sorts of issues: bullying, obesity, smoking and
truancy” [Taylor: 2013, n.p.]. The public interest in issues of trust, nations and
risk society is reflected in the plethora of publications on the topic, generally
(e.g., Cook, Levi & Hardin: 2009; Botsman: 2017). So, too, is reflected the
public interest in “the new big brother” global surveillance, as illustrated in
a recent National Geographic article outlining the 2.5 trillion shared or stored
photographs and others on the Internet annually [Draper: 2018, 38]. And that
does not include surveillance date gathered through schools and colleges, such
as individual standardised test scores, data on the payment of school fees or
enrolment data.

Analysis and conclusions

Often associated with some form of moral panic, with at least a 25-year his-
tory of usage and extended theorising, the notion of risk society has become a
highly nuanced and influential social construct. At first tending to be centred
on environmental issues, risk society theory has been used to examine increas-
ingly a range of issues confronting developed economies such as the US, UK
and Australia.
Risk society theory postulates social, economic and environmental catastro-
phes at every turn, almost in a sense that this must necessarily be so as socio-
economic developments advance through various stages of modernity. As a
part of this process is the compelling notion of how manufactured risks are the
product of human activity, such as the exponential use of plastics, or indeed
closer to the imperatives of risk society and school education, such commercial
activities as rapidly increasing impact of fast food industry on families in respect
to obesity. Authors like Giddens and Beck argue that it is possible for societies
to assess the level of risk that is being produced, or that is about to be produced,
or indeed, even thought to be a forthcoming risk. This sort of reflexive intro-
spection can in turn attempt to alter the planned activities themselves. Witness
the campaigns against childhood obesity by national governments as the medi-
cal profession increasingly warn against what this means for national health and
wellbeing, while at the same time governments control young people’s riding
bikes to school.
This brings us back to the illustration from Ward’s illustration on his 1952
school textbook shown at the beginning of the Introduction to this book, an
illustration we suggest now portrays graphically the idea that when “modern-
ization reaches a certain stage, it radicalizes itself. It begins to transform, for a
second time, not only the key institutions, but also the very principles of soci-
ety. But this time the principles and institutions being transformed are those of
modern society” [Beck, Bonss & Lau: 2003, 1]. Increasingly, many people in
modern societies are now considering the fundamental truths and wisdom of
Indigenous societies such as that of the Australian Aborigines portrayed in 1952
Ward illustration featured on our Introduction.
52 Risk society theory arrives
An example of the way in which risk society might be anticipated to impact
on school education policy is through what Furedi [1997/2006] has labelled
the “blame culture”, such is the general anxiety for the future complaints and
litigation dominate people’s thinking, prompting people, institutions and soci-
ety generally to speculate constantly about possible future harms, a formula for
social and economic paralysis and low moral expectations. Schools are perceived
as sites of enormous potential risks. Imagine governments or organisations – such
as school education authorities – wherein there exists a set of attitudes charac-
terised by an unwillingness to take risks or to accept responsibility for mistakes
due to a fear of criticism or prosecution, or indeed, other manifestations of risk
society imperatives. Much of this national mood can be associated with issues
of trust and risk society.

References
Adam, B. & van Loon, J. (2000). Introduction: repositioning risk; the challenge for social
theory. In B. Adam, U. Beck & J. van Loon (Eds) The risk society and beyond: critical issues
for social theory. London: Sage, pp. 2–19.
Archer, M. (1982). Morphogenesis vs structuration. British Journal of Sociology. 33. pp.
455–483.
Aron, R. (1968). Progress and disillusion: the dialectics of modern society. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Bagguley, P. (2003). Reflexivity contra-structuration. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 28(2).
pp. 133–152.
Beck, U. (1992/2007). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (2006) Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society. 35(3) (August)
329–345.
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society: A Hobhouse Memorial Public Lecture
given on Wednesday 15 February 2006 at the London School of Economics. Economy &
Society. 35(3), 329–345.
Beck, U. (Trans. Ciaran Cronin). (2009) World at Risk. London. Polity.
Beck, U. (2014). Ulrich Beck’s scientific leadership profile. In U. Beck (Ed.) Ulrich Beck:
pioneer in cosmopolitan sociology and risk society. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Beck, U., Bonss, W. & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic,
hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society. 20(2) pp. 1–33.
Blankfeld, K. (2009). Countries billionaires Could Buy. Forbes. (30 September).
Boot, M. (2005). “In Command of History”: How Churchill Revised World War II.
New York Times: Sunday Book Review (13 November). Retrieved 18 September from
[Link]/2005/11/13/books/review/in-command-of-history-how-churchill-
[Link]?_r=0.
Botsman, R. (2017). Who can we trust? How technology brought us together – and why it could
drive us apart. London: Penguin Books.
Cannon, M. (1966). The land boomers. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Castel, R. (1991). From dangerous to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller
(Eds.) The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality, Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf, pp.
201–226.
Churchill, W. (1948–1953). The Second World War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
 Risk society theory arrives 53
Cook, K.S., Levi, M. & Hardin, R. (2009). Who can we trust? How groups, networks and institu-
tions make trust possible, London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Culpitt, I (1999). Social policy and risk. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Benoit, A. (2008) A brief history of the idea of progress (trans. G. Johnson). The Occi-
dental Quarterly. 8(1) (Spring). pp. 7–16.
Draper, R. (2018). The new big brother, National Geographic (February), 233(2). pp. 30–65.
Ellis, L. (2009). The Global Financial Crisis: Causes, Consequences and Countermea-
sures. The Reserve Bank of Australia. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from [Link]/
speeches/2009/[Link].
Ericson, R.V. & Haggerty, K.D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Executive education (n.d.). Eurasia Group. Retrieved 3 January 2018 from [Link]
[Link]/services/executive-education.
Furedi, F. (1997/2006). Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation (2nd Edn).
London: Cassell.
Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology. 95. pp. 1–37.
Gaskell, A. (2017). In a collaborative age, who can we trust? Forbes (10 October). Retrieved
17 October 2017 from [Link]/sites/adigaskell/2017/10/10/in-a-collaborative-
age-who-can-we-trust/#6657992f379d.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile.
Global Risks Report (2016). World Economic Forum. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from
[Link]/reports/the-global-risks-report-2016.
Haggerty, K.D. & Ericson, R.V. (2005). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. pp. 3–34.
In The new politics of surveillance and visibility. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
Hardy, I. (2015). Education as a “risky business”: theorising student and teacher learning in
complex times. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(3). pp. 375–394.
Huber, M. (2011). The risk university: Risk identification at higher education institutions in England:
Discussion Paper # 69 (July). Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London
School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 27 August 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/38891/1/The_risk_university_Risk_identification_at_higher_education_
institutions_in_England.pdf .
Hutter, B. & Power, M. (eds). (2005). Organizational encounters with risk. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Inequality in America: the rich, the poor and the growing gap between them (2006). The
Economist (15 June). Retrieved 10 October from [Link]/node/7055911.
Jakopovich, D. (2014). The Concept of Class. Cambridge Studies in Social Research No.
14. Social Science Research Group Human, Social and Political Sciences. Cambridge
Studies in Social Research Series. R M Blackburn (Gen. Ed.). Cambridge University:
SSRG Publications. (pp. 2–3).
Jarvis, D.S.L. (n.d.). Theorizing risk: Ulrich Beck, globalization and the rise of the risk soci-
ety. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Retrieved
24 July 2016 from [Link]
Johnson, B.B. & Covello, V.T. (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk: issues,
methods, and case studies. In B.B. Johnson, & V.T. Covello (Eds) (1987). The social and
cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing, pp. 132–163.
Kaldor, M. & Selchow, S. (2015). Ulrich Beck obituary: German sociologist who pointed
to the risks that come from technological change. The Guardian (January). Retrieved 29
September 2017 from [Link]/profile/sabine-selchow.
54 Risk society theory arrives
Lingard, B., Martino, W. & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and
education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education
Policy, 28(5), pp. 539–556.
Lukes, S. (1974/2005). Power: a radical view (2nd Edn) London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lupton, D. (1999). Risk: key ideas (2nd Edn) Abingdon,Oxon: Psychology Press.
Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of
Communication. 31, pp. 106–115.
Miller, L. (2008). Foucauldian constructionism, pp. 251–274. In J.A. Holstein & J.F.
Gubrium, Handbook of constructionist research. New York/London: Guildford Press.
Mouzelis, N. (2001). Reflexive modernization and the third way: the impasses of Giddens’
social-democratic politics, The Sociological Review, 49. pp. 436–456.
O’Malley, P. (1998). Crime and the risk society. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Oksman, O. (2016). Fish for dinner? Your seafood might come with a side of plastic, The
Guardian (1 September). Retrieved 15 October 2016 from [Link]/
lifeandstyle/2016/aug/31/fish-plastic-pollution-ocean-environment-seafood.
Petersen, A. (1997). Risk governance and the new public health. In A. Petersen & R. Bun-
ton (Eds). Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge, pp. 189–206.
Pfaff, W. (1995/1996). Progress. World Policy Journal. 12(4) (Winter, pp. 41–49.
Reynolds, D. (2004) In command of history: Churchill fighting and writing the Second World War.
New York: Random House.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Moral panics impact school education. New York/London: Routledge.
Rose, N. (2009). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology. 40. pp. 321–339.
Rossi, J. (2002). Churchill and the revisionist historians. Contemporary Review. 280, p. 1634.
Sharlin, H.I. (1987). Macro-risks, micro-risks, and the media: the EDB case. In B.B. John-
son, & V.T. Covello (Eds) The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht/Boston: D.
Reidel Publishing, pp. 79–132.
Short, J.F. (1984). The social fabric at risk: toward the social transformation of risk analysis.
American Sociological Review. 49(7). pp. 11–25.
Slovic, P. (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment
battlefield. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives to environment and ethics in management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
pp. 232–278.
Stallings, R.A. (1990). Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social Problems.
37(1). pp. 80–95.
Stewart, A. (2001). Theories of power and domination: the politics of empowerment in late moder-
nity. London: Sage.
Taylor, E. (2013). School surveillance puts trust at risk. Sydney Morning Herald. (8 October).
Retrieved 17 October from [Link]/comment/school-surveillance-puts-trust-
[Link].
Tharoor, S. (2010). Review of Madhustree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, Time, (29 Novem-
ber) 2010, p. 43.
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953 (n.d.). Retrieved 18 September 2016 from [Link]
[Link]/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/.
Ungar, S. (2001). Moral panic versus the risk society: the implications of the changing sites
of social anxiety. British Journal of Sociology, 52(2) pp. 271–291.
Ward, R. (1952). Man makes history. Sydney: Shakespeare Head Press.
 Risk society theory arrives 55
Webb, S.A. (2006). Risk. Social Work and Society International Online Journal. 4(2). Retrieved
1 October 2016 from [Link]/sws/article/view/166/555.
Weber, M. ([1904] 1949) ‘“Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In M. Weber
(Ed) The methodologies of the socials Sciences (trans and ed. E.A. Shils & H.A Finch). New
York: Free Press.
Westergaard, J. (1996). Class in Britain since 1979: facts, theories and ideologies. In D.J.
Lee & B.S. Turner (Eds.) Conflicts about class: debating inequality in late industrialism. New
York: Longman Publishing.
3 Young people and families
living in risk society

Introduction
Risks and young people seemingly have walked hand-in-glove for centuries,
and often these risks perpetuated by young people were perceived in terms of
national risks. Clearly, young people and families have long faced multitudes of
risks, but yet true to risk society theory, since sometime late in the 20th century,
in attempting to alleviate various risks young people and families were, in fact,
responding to risks resulting from socially and economically derived sources: for
example, in a drive to enable young families more leisure time and so on there
has been an increased consumption of take-away food, which then partly resulted
in increased societal obesity, which in turn accentuated many of the risks already
confronting young people and families and society generally [Mokdad, et al:
2003]. Obesity came to be perceived in terms of an element to national risk, with
developing apparent concerns for national governments to target school educa-
tion to introduce programs to alleviate these national anxieties.
Many of the risks confronting young people and families during the late
20th century and later came from within the framework of the vast soci-
etal changes occurring, but of course many, have a long history: witness for
example, increased racism and Islamophobia, perceived by some to result from
increased migration; consider on the other hand, increased road traffic result-
ing from pressures on parents and carers to transport their children to schools.
But what are the social and historical constructs that have shaped the kalei-
doscope that is youth identity?

Anxious nations
Risk society brings with it a nation of anxious young people. Beck [1992, 87]
states that through the process of individualisation “people will be set free from
the social forms of industrial society – class, stratification, family, gender status
of men and women”. Now, people are free to choose their social identity. For
Beck [1992, 87], this increase in choice is the primary cause of people’s anxiety
and fear. Here, we should note Beck’s [1992, 92] work focused on the “disap-
pearance” of inequality from government policy and the “agenda of daily life”,
 Young people and families living in risk society 57
yet for some researchers this focus has actually served to perpetuate the shift
away from inequality and structural concerns [Pavlidis: 2009].
For families and young people this movement away from structure has had
many consequences, most notably the shift from “locally defined and enacted”
youth, to public policy focused on the “science of prevention”, a theme often
attended to by Furedi [e.g., 1997/2006] and the emergence of “at-risk” youth
identities; it individualises risk and makes youth and their families responsible
for its effective management [France: 2008, 1].
Anxiety, however, is a slippery term, “a broad, confusing label and is a con-
dition with multiple causes” [McBain: 2014, n.p.]. McBain [2014, n.p.] argued,
“we are not the first generation to believe we live in an exceptionally anx-
ious age, and yet in some ways, thanks to the development of drugs and talk-
ing therapies, anxiety is a peculiarly modern experience”. Whether viewed
in terms of its economic effects, “or from the perspective of plain, simple suf-
fering, or whether one merely wonders why three million of us appear to be
afflicted by a disorder we still can’t quite define”, perhaps at the very root of
Britain’s struggle with nerves “is that we don’t often talk about it”, observed
McBain [2014, n.p.].
Worryingly, “for a condition that affects so many of us, there is very little agree-
ment about what anxiety actually is. Is it a physiological condition, best treated
with medication, or psychological – the product of repressed trauma, as a Freud-
ian might suggest?” [McBain [2014, n.p.] On the other hand, “is it a cultural
construct, a reaction to today’s anomic society, or a more fundamental spiritual
and philosophical reflection of what it means to be human?” [McBain: 2014, n.p.]
Taking place in 2007, a nationwide survey found three million people in the
UK had an anxiety disorder. “About 7 per cent of UK adults are on antidepres-
sants (often prescribed for anxiety, too) and one in seven will take benzodiaz-
epines such as Xanax in any one year” [McBain: 2014, n.p.]. All of this has seen
a rise of mental health concerns in the three countries under consideration in
this book. In the UK, mental health charities warn that our anxiety levels are
creeping even higher; they often blame our “switched-on” modern culture
for this, or the financial crisis and the long recession that followed it [McBain:
[2014, n.p.].
America’s State of Mind Report showed that one in every six people in the US
suffers from anxiety. School-aged children are increasingly being drawn into
the use of antipsychotics: “Additionally, while the actual prevalence of children
ages 10−19 on atypical antipsychotics is low – about one per cent – their num-
bers more than doubled from 2001–2010” [Medco: n.d.].

Restructuring of youth identities and transitions

in late modernity
While the conventional ascription of turbulence and risk-taking to the transi-
tional state of youth is a matter of some dispute [Coleman & Hendry: 1999],
58 Young people and families living in risk society
most commentators agree this is a period in a person’s life in which major tran-
sitions are to be negotiated, both in the internal self, and with the expectations
of the external world. For better or worse, it is represented as a risky business,
a time of increased risk-taking.
In the Introduction of this book we have referred to the work of Cottle
[1998], and we will do so again, principally in Chapter 4 in showing the impact
of the media on risk society thinking by policy bureaucrats. Here we are con-
cerned with exploring the contexts of social media in the restructuring of
youth identities and transitions in late modernity with a special reference to
risk society theory and its application to policy and practice.
Exploring the constitutive elements of globalisation – including “a celebra-
tion of risk, reduction in state funding for social reproduction in developed
nations and pressures to modernize in underdeveloped ones” – Ruddick [2003,
334] argued these elements are “being ‘smuggled in’ in the guise of new dis-
courses around youth and childhood. Far from being a by-product of capital-
ism in its various phases, youth and childhood can be located at its literal and
figurative core”.
Essentially, what follows in Ruddick’s [2003] research is a thesis that the
modern ideals of youth and childhood, hegemonic in the West over the past
century, are being exported to non-Western contexts in which resources to
reproduce adequately these forms are tragically lacking [Ruddick: 2003, 334].
Indeed, one has not to look far for evidence to support the thesis. In a memo-
rable cover photograph for the National Geographic article, with the stark but
picaresque Himalaya Mountains as a backdrop, Paley [2017, 64] illustrated how
“above the [Pakistani] village of Pasu, a teenager checks his smart-phone”.
Later in the article, Paley [2017, 71] shows an equally memorable photograph
of young people in the Pakistani village of Zood Khun where, “family mem-
bers of a soon-to-be-married bride pauses to snap a selfie before the ‘love
marriage’ festivities begin”. Social media, associated technology, and accom-
panying and changing value systems are altering the lives and social identity
of these people. This example from Pakistan concurs with research by Gold-
man, Booker and McDermott [2008, 185] which shows how, “innovations in
technology are . . . shaping how adults and youth interact with each other in
school, at home, and at large”.
Emerging over the past 20 years, argued Ruddick [2003, 334], and “in
a crude characterization of the global map, one would find a world drawn
roughly into three parts – and in each of these parts, youth and childhood
is being restructured in a distinct way”. Looking “suspiciously like the ear-
lier global models of developed, developing and underdeveloped nations”, the
nature of the exclusions sustaining them “spell particularly bad news for the
world’s young people” [Ruddick: 2003, 334].
Under pressures of “a new political economy”, globalism and risk soci-
ety imperative, the old 20th-century categorising of childhood-adolescents-
adulthood has been kaleidoscopic. During the past two decades, “in Western
 Young people and families living in risk society 59
settings . . . such resources have been eroded for children and young people,
and celebrated aspects of ‘youthfulness’ have been displaced to adults to justify
lifelong learning and the increasing assumption of risk by older workers” [Rud-
dick: 2003, 334].
While much of the work was challenged – e.g., Ulanowicz [n.d.] – pioneer
researchers such as Frenchman, Philippe Ariès [1960] in his Centuries of child-
hood demonstrated how childhood is a distinctly 20th-century notion, socially
constructed by modern society. Later historians – such as Colin Heywood
(2001) in his History of childhood – examined the different ways in which people
have thought about childhood as a stage of life, the relationships of children
with their families and peers, and the experiences of young people at work, in
school and at the hands of various welfare institutions. Similarly, the modern
adolescent – the teenager – is similarly socially constructed, emerging in post-
war America. The social construction of childhood and adolescence continues
into late modernity, as ever-shifting concepts, and in the process generates
multiple and changing risks to society. Nowhere is this better researched and
explained than by Cieslik and Pollock [2002, 1], who contend: “With such
changes youth researchers have suggested that new patterns of identities and
transitions have emerged bringing with it the creation of new opportunities as
well as divisions and equalities amongst contemporary youth”. Perhaps with an
eye on such phenomena as social class, social media, racism and Islamophobia,
this realisation has brought Cieslik and Pollock [2002, 3] to contend:

The growth of new global hazards and the uncertainties of detradition-

alization has created a world in which individuals increasingly have to
become much more reflexive about their practices. This reflexiveness for
Beck is the key way in which people manage their lives in risk society.
When confronted by new global hazards, the restructuring of civil society
and a growing critique of expert knowledges, individuals are compelled to
become more involved in processes of “self-confrontation” [Gudmunds-
son: 2000] of more “self-conscious” about their daily lives and practices if
they are to successfully manage their biographies in contemporary society.

Clearly, all of this throws upon schools, colleges and school educational institu-
tions vast new responsibilities and opportunities for policy developments.
Issues of risk associated with a student’s socio-economic position have long
been precarious in respect to school education. A plethora of lifetime risks arise
in respect to school education. “On the one hand, as children start school, or
as teenagers enter university, there is a lot of uncertainty about the outcomes”
[Quiggin: 2007, 7]. Of course, some students will do well and progress on
to high-paying jobs, others, however, will do poorly and face the prospect of
insecure, badly paid work. Significantly, this uncertainty is not uniform, and
constitutes the crux of issues associated with school education and risk soci-
ety. It is at this point that much disagreement arises, pushing to the fore issues
60 Young people and families living in risk society
of risk society: to what extent do governments intervene to insure not only
equity, but at the same time addressing the many associated issues confronting
risk society? One researcher explained this quandary this way:

Students from poor backgrounds will have limited access to loans to sup-
port education, and will face less favourable terms and more limited oppor-
tunities. This can be seen quite clearly when we look at the make up of
student populations in the top US universities. A 2004 study showed that,
of the 146 most competitive and selective institutions, just 3 percent of stu-
dents come from families whose incomes are in the lowest 25 percent. In
comparison, 74 percent came from families in the top quarter. Although
the situation in Australia is not as bad as this, students from working class
background are less than half as likely to attend university as students from
professional and managerial backgrounds.
[Quiggin: 2007, 7]

An individual’s socio-economic status defines the likelihood of them taking a

university degree, and certainly dropout rates from universities are linked to
socio-economic status [Quiggin: 2007, 8].

Marginalised children and their families: risk society

and eugenics
With at least a century-long history, often proceeding hand-in-hand with the
educational professions, regularly the medical profession had been in the van-
guard of the eugenic drive to ease the push of marginalised families, the US,
UK and Australia for most of the first half of the 20th century. Nowhere was
this more evident than with those associated with the notorious Kallikak fam-
ily, as portrayed in Henry H. Goddard’s “highly influential” book, The Kallikak
family: A study of the heredity of feeblemindedness [1913. Aided by “rabbit-like
breeding” by the feebleminded, it was believed, racial decay could quickly
destroy a nation [Rodwell: 2017, 3].
Of course, sterilisation and eugenic interventions such as clitoridectomies
all had perceived legitimate roles for governments and other authorities. As
eugenic laws swept many American states and in the UK, along with eugenic
policies directed at Indigenous populations, schools and colleges became sites
where “the degenerate”, the “dysgenic”, could be located and dealt with
[Evans & Parry: 2000; McGregor: 2000]. This was a period when the notion
of “normal” underwent substantial changes as it was socially constructed, often
with strong support from the medical profession [Prescott: 2004; Haller: 1963].
Perhaps not surprisingly, when pressured by risk society imperatives, we
find national governments and state governments responding similarly with
eugenic-inspired advocacies. Again, members of the medical profession called
for policy change in the ways in which the breeding of alleged dysgenic fami-
lies and children should be controlled. There was a common cry that these
 Young people and families living in risk society 61
children and families through government health, educational, welfare and
police and justice bureaucracies.
These old eugenic ideas continue to abound. For example, writing in the
highly influential Medical Journal of Australia, Australia’s Bond University’s Dean
of Medicine, Peter Jones, who at the time also was a practising paediatrician,
said far too many Australian children were being placed in out-of-home care,
with little evidence that it made them safer. His research had demonstrated
during the past 18 years, rates of Indigenous children placed in care had more
than tripled, and for non-Indigenous children, they had more than doubled.
Indeed, Jones showed in June 2015, 43,399 children were in out-of-home care,
each costing about $70,000 a year. “Children in care experience significantly
poorer health outcomes than children who have never been in care, with one
study recording up to 60 per cent having a current mental health diagnosis,
including attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, depression, and attachment
and conduct disorders”, Jones [2017, 1] wrote.
Jones [2017, 1] argued more needed to be done to strengthen and support
the families into which vulnerable children were born. “We need to aggres-
sively invest in young vulnerable mothers when they have their first child in
disadvantaged circumstances and not wait until there have been documented
problems with child neglect before the child protection and social services
systems react”, he contended. “Politically charged” questions had to be asked
about whether Australia should be developing policies that encourage disad-
vantaged families to have fewer children [Jones: 2017, 1]. “The focus should be
on prevention”, he argued [Jones: 2017, 1]. “Prevention” was code for “pre-
vent them from breeding”.
Jones’ [2017] arguments found little support in the Australian media (see,
e.g., Miles: 2017; Tuohy: 2017). Still, this is a clear instance of medical profes-
sion elites attempting to resurrect old eugenic policy solutions to perceived
problems exposed by risk society imperatives. Inevitably, as was the case with
earlier eugenic programs, there is a clear threat of school educational policy also
being required to respond.

Risk society thinking, education and socio-economical

disadvantaged families
Across the media in Western advanced countries, there is a constant reminder
of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, with governments looking
to school education in playing a key causal role. For example, basing its report
on OECD data, Reuben [2015, n.p.] from BBC News reported how the gap
between the rich and the poor keeps widening: “In its 34 member states, the
richest 10% of the population earn 9.6 times the income of the poorest 10%.
While there is no standard measure of inequality, most indicators suggested it
slowed or fell during the GFC, but is again growing”. Of particular concern,
and relevance to this book, “the OECD warn[ed] that such inequality is a
threat to economic growth” [Reuben: 2015, n.p.]. Moreover, the report stated:
62 Young people and families living in risk society
“This is partly because there is a wider gap in education in the most unequal
countries, which leads to a less effective workforce” [Reuben: 2015, n.p.].
Over 20 years before the Reuben [2015] report, in risk society terms Beck
[1992, 35, cited in McGregor & Mills: 2010, 3] had warned against this very
thing:

Like wealth, risks adhere to the class pattern, only inversely: wealth accu-
mulates at the top, risks at the bottom. To that extent, risks seem to
strengthen, not abolish, the class society. Poverty attracts an unfortunate
abundance of risks. By contrast, the wealthy (in income, power or educa-
tion) can purchase safety and freedom from risk.

So, there may be an assumption through school education nations can alleviate
risk, including “a less effective workforce” [Beck: 1992, 35, cited in McGregor &
Mills: 2010, 3].
In order to alleviate national risk involving marginalised socio-economic
groups, it is worth noting how various studies show how national governments
look to remedy these risks. For example, the South Eastern Europe (SEE) and
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region has a history of major
disasters caused by natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods and extreme
temperatures, which in turn socio-economically marginalises individuals and
groups. In the words of one report:

These frequently devastating events affect all of the populations of the

countries involved, with severe social and economic consequences for
the most vulnerable people. However, the impact of these natural hazards
could be drastically reduced if appropriate disaster risk reduction strategies
at regional, national and community level were put in place.
[United Nations Children’s Fund: 2010, 4]

This report “provides general information on national and regional education

and disaster risk reduction activities and makes recommendations on how to
support and build on local and national initiatives to reduce the risk of disasters
through education” [United Nations Children’s Fund: 2010, 4].
Other marginalised socio-economic groups responding positively to
increased risk society inspired expenditure by a national government on school
educational programs to alleviate national risk includes programs for Indigenous
Australians about sexually transmitted infections (STI) and blood-borne viruses
(BBV). Here, one report concluded: “Sexual health education programs can
positively influence behaviour, and reduce STIs, BBVs and unwanted pregnan-
cies” [Strobel & Ward: 2012, n.p.].
Likewise, socio-economically challenged families respond positively to risk
society-stimulated school educational programs. Following on from research
by Gray and Beresford [2002] and White and Wyn [2008], McGregor and
Mills [2010, 1] observed: “Families in economic difficulty may also have higher
 Young people and families living in risk society 63
levels of residential and school mobility that impact upon the ability of students
to maintain continuity in their academic studies and establish strong networks
of support amongst peers”. For these families there are a range of factors exac-
erbating these challenges, leading to “a lack of expertise in a whole range of
taken-for-granted middle class socio-cultural situations, or ‘cultural capital’”
[Bourdieu: 1984, cited in McGregor & Mills: 2010, 1], and this creates an
achievement gap that “widens over time unless there is sensitive and sustained
intervention by the school” [Apple & Buras: 2006, cited in McGregor & Mills
[2010, 1]. Basing their statement on research by Teese and Polesel [2003],
McGregor & Mills [2010, 1] argued: “If this gap remains and grows the con-
sequences include low achievement, low self-esteem and eventually disengage-
ment from learning . . . often provoking resistant behaviours in the classroom
and school. These challenging behaviours position such students for cycles of
conflict with schooling authorities often leading to absenteeism, suspension,
expulsion or ‘dropping out’”.
Despite these challenges, McGregor and Mills [2010, 1] showed: “Schools
are positioned to play a vital role in helping students to develop such compe-
tencies, but there must be greater attention paid to the broader socio-economic
context and its inherent inequalities”. Moreover, responding to risk society
imperatives, the researchers contend: “In recent years, government discourses
have re-cast the terminology of this problem. Social justice has been replaced
by equity” [McGregor & Mills: 2010, 1]. Consequently, “equality of opportu-
nity has overtaken notions of affirmative action with deficit labels attached to
those young people who ‘fail’ to seize it. An ‘equitable’ approach ignores the
social reality that children start school from very unequal positions and thus
perpetuates class-based inequality” [McGregor & Mills: 2010, 1]. Despite often
challenging circumstances, purpose-designed school educational programs seek
to alleviate many of the challenges these potentially disengaged young people
may pose to national risk factors.
Such compensatory programs as described by McGregor and Mills [2010]
are not new. Typically, such programs began in the US, the UK and Australia
during the late 1960s or early 1970s. Although there is no evidence to suggest
that these early educational compensatory programs were directly linked with
risk society imperatives.
Typically, however, social justice imperatives were principal drivers of these
early compensatory educational programs. The detrimental effects of pov-
erty on young people’s academic outcomes and general wellbeing are well
documented [see e.g., Garmezy: 1991]. Generally, it has been demonstrated:
“Children who grow up in poverty suffer higher incidences of adverse physi-
cal health, developmental delays, and emotional and behavioral problems than
children from more affluent families. In school, children and adolescents living
in poverty are more likely to repeat a grade, to be expelled or suspended, to
achieve low test scores, and to drop out of high school” [Reimers: n.d., n.p.].
These are findings endorsed by Bardsley [2007, 493] who examined the
effect of globalisation on the effectiveness of secondary education for all
64 Young people and families living in risk society
children as Australian society. This research began with the premise that, “in
a global era, where societal development will rely on the knowledge and skills
of the workforce, an effective education will become even more important
for socio-economic engagement and equality” [Bardsley: 2007, 493]. Signifi-
cantly, Bardsley’s [2007, 493] research showed “students from disadvantaged
backgrounds are the most vulnerable to globalization as they are less likely
to achieve academically or go on to benefit from the restructured neoliberal
economy”. Consequently, school educational policy needs to continue to sup-
port the access of all young people “for life in general, and employment in
particular” in a risk society [Bardsley: 2007, 493].
Though more rigorous research is needed to understand many of the dynam-
ics and general effects of poverty on school education, current research shows
how, here the depth, duration and timing of poverty are important consider-
ations. Specifically, children who live in extreme poverty, or who live below
the poverty line for multiple years seem to suffer the worst outcomes. As one
would suspect, explaining increasing attention to young children, risk soci-
ety conscious governments increasingly are developing policies to alleviate the
impact of poverty during the preschool and early school years also appears to
be more deleterious than the effects of poverty in later years, even as Chapter 5
illustrates the extent to which some governments contemplate lowering the
mandatory age of commencing school [Reimers: n.d., n.p.].

Social media and restructuring of youth identities

In looking to the role of social media in restructuring youth identities, Ahn,
et al [2012, n.p.] wrote: “In today’s media-rich world, youths are not merely
consumers, but also active creators of information”. However, “constructing a
personal identity is an activity much more complex than elaborating a series of
online profiles, which are only digital hints of the Self ”, according to Durante
[2011, 594]. For her, the construction of young people’s personal identity is
“a context-mediated activity” [Durante: 2011, 594]. This researcher hypoth-
eses young people are, “enabled, as digital natives and social network users, to
co-construct the ‘context of communication’ in which their narrative identi-
ties will be interpreted and understood” [Durante: 2011, 594]. In particular,
the researcher sought to establish how such construction of personal identity
“emerges out of the tension between trust and privacy”. The argument con-
tinued: “. . . it is, on the one hand, the outcome of a web of trustful relations
and, on the other, the framework in which the informational norms regulating
teens’ expectations of privacy protection are set and evaluated” [Durante: 2011,
594]. Indeed, for Durante [2011, 594], “the general and widespread use of
information technology is, in fact, challenging our traditional way of thinking
about the world and our identities in terms of stable and durable structures;
they are reconstituted, instead, into novel forms”.
There is a plethora of research on young people, risk-taking and policy devel-
opment in risk society: “The idea of youth at risk has become central to a range
 Young people and families living in risk society 65
of discourses, academic and professional”, contended Sharland [2006, n.p.]. Risk
society priorities drive a whole range of government policies. “Young peo-
ple . . . are seen both as a treasured resource and as endangered and dangerous –
at risk, from others, to themselves, and to the fabric of communities” [Sharland:
2006, n.p.]. Indeed, “the category of ‘youth at risk’, and the imperatives to
protect, monitor, contain and sustain young people in the transition to respon-
sible adulthood, have come to the fore on multiple intellectual and professional
agendas” [Sharland: 2006, n.p.]. And as we have seen in Chapter 2, Rose [2009,
321] has shown so forcibly that governments and policymakers exercise increas-
ing control over how to prevent young people from taking, or being exposed
to risk, from becoming socially excluded, deviant, unhealthy or unproductive.
Moreover, driven by risk society thinking, governments are increasingly perfect-
ing a vast plethora of surveillance strategies to monitor and control these risks,
certainly with school education playing a major role.

Young people and families inflicted by increasing racism

There is a plethora of research and publications highlighting the issues associ-
ated with racism on “black” families in the US, the UK and Australia, much
of it highlighting future risks facing these families, most likely these risks are
long held by the families concerned. For example, Starr [2015, n.p.] showed:

• Black children are much more likely than white children to be suspended
and expelled from school.
• Black boys are considered “older looking” and “less innocent” than white
children.
• Black kids get shot for playing with toy guns.
• Black children are hyper-policed at far higher rates than white children.
• Black kids who are born into middle-class families can still end up poor.
• Black parents have to teach their children how to deal with police officers.
• Most children sentenced to life without parole are black.

According to this research, these families face a much more problematic future
than do white families. Clearly, there are – or at least should be – severe issues
here for school authorities and governments. But we know racism affects
everybody. How does this manifest itself in schools?
We know in schools racism occurs in explicit forms such as name-calling,
teasing, exclusion, verbal abuse and bullying. It is also commonly and indirectly
presented through prejudiced attitudes, lack of recognition of cultural diversity
and culturally biased practices. And we also know that it has been acknowl-
edged that racism can have a profound effect on students, teachers and gener-
ally affects the overall school atmosphere, and indeed, those same groups can
be the perpetrators as well as the recipients of racism. The New South Wales
Government’s project, Racism. No Way! [2014, n.p.] has identified the follow-
ing effects of racism.
66 Young people and families living in risk society
Students who experience racism might:

• be afraid of going to school

• have trouble studying and concentrating in class
• stay away from school
• feel anxious and unhappy
• have trouble making friends
• fall behind in schoolwork
• get lower results in their exams
• not speak their first language for fear of being teased or picked on
• reject their own culture and parental values
• be confused about their own identity
• be aggressive or disruptive.

Teachers who experience racism might:

• not want to go to work each day

• lose confidence in their ability to teach
• feel anxious and unhappy
• stay away from school
• lose enjoyment in teaching.

Effects on the whole school:

• students making friends only with others from the same background
• fights in playground between students from different cultural or linguistic
groups
• conflict between staff and students from different backgrounds
• unfriendly school environment
• parents not having confidence in the school and education system. [Rac-
ism. No Way!: 2014, n.p.]

We can only imagine what effects all this has on such benchmarks as PISA
scores, and assist in moving this to be issues integral to a nation’s policies in
dealing with risk society.
Has there been any progress in the battle against racism in the UK? Andrews
[2015, n.p.] conceded there has been some progress since 1965, but focusing
on individual prejudice has avoided tackling endemic systematic racism, leav-
ing significant inequalities. Indeed, the Race Relations Act (1965) was passed 50
years ago, outlawing the racist discrimination that was the daily experience of
migrants from the empire. “No longer would signs of ‘no blacks, no Irish, no
dogs’ be allowed and it was made illegal to refuse service or job opportunities
on the basis of skin color”. Clearly, the act was an important step in reducing
the prejudice faced by ethnic minorities. Yet, for Andrews, if we stopped mea-
suring racism in attitude surveys and legislative change we would realise the real
 Young people and families living in risk society 67
test is to analyse the disadvantages faced by ethnic minority communities. This
is a test the UK is hopelessly failing: witness the following Daily Mail report by
Clark [2012, n.p.]: “Tens of thousands of children – including some as young as
three – have been accused of racism at school . . . data from 90 councils detail
87,915 ‘racist incidents’ at primary and secondary schools between 2007 and
2011”. In fact, according to Clark [2012, n.p.], “the number of recorded inci-
dents would be substantially higher if the picture was replicated across all 200
local [educational] authorities in England, Wales and Scotland”.
In Australia although there have been Children’s Commissioners and Guard-
ians in the states and territories for a few years, Megan Mitchell’s appointment
in 2013 as the first National Children’s Commissioner in Australia was a rec-
ognition by the national government of national imperatives facing children
and families. For Mitchell, racism was a central concern. In 2014, she implored
Australians to listen to the Racism. It Stops with Me campaign. This featured
high-profile Australian sportsmen, such as Australian cricket captain, Michael
Clark, and AFL (Australian Football League) champion and Australian of the
Year for 2014, Adam Goodes [Mitchell: 2014; Racism: It Stops with Me: n.d.].
Sport and racism are often fellow travellers, even with young people in schools.
Without social media, a churlish, but nevertheless offensive racist, locker
room prank would remain just that. But in the hands of some sinisterly moti-
vated people, the act assumes the level of a national dog-whistle concern-
ing racism and school education. Take for example, the case of “a black doll
with toothpaste dripping from her mouth was found hanging from a ceiling
in the locker room of a Pennsylvania high school, and athletes interviewed by
authorities about it said it was a ‘foolish prank’” [Strauss: 2017, n.p.]. Here, the
dog-whistle racism went viral on social media, prompting the superintendent
of the school district to condemn the act.

Young people, families, Islamophobia and the media

The use of social media and Islamophobia are fellow travellers, and not always
in a negative sense as young Muslims seek mutual support against Islamopho-
bia. Cell (mobile) phones can provide massive peer support for young people
being taunted by Islamophobia [Rodwell: 2017, 1, 6, 107].
With a fresh wave of Islamophobia, by the beginning of the 21st century,
researchers and policymakers were turning their attention to the effect all of this
was having on young people. Newly elected President Trump issued executive
orders banning Muslim migration from seven mostly Muslim countries which
his government deemed to be a national risk, and at the same time institute
a policy of “extreme vetting” of all Muslim immigrants [Yuhas, 2017, n.p.].
The connection with these imperatives and risk society thinking is only too
clear: nationally, Islamophobia could render dreadfully destructive outcomes
on families, school education, and society-at-large. Economies and societies
could be disrupted. Researchers and policy people recognised the role of the
media, especially the mushrooming social media in these developments.
68 Young people and families living in risk society
Under the auspices of Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of
Europe, in June 2004 the European Youth Centre Budapest hosted a four-day
conference on Islamophobia and its consequences on young people [Ram-
berg: 2004]. A paper given at the seminar, and one of central concern for this
book was Michael Privot’s [2004] paper on “Islam in the media: a pathway to
Islamophobia”. Using images and texts from the press, the author showed the
developing stereotypes of Islam, also stressing how other media – the Internet,
TV, radio, cinema – were also a party to these developments. That was 2004,
and in the intervening years social media grew at an exponential rate, so much
so by 2018, I had lost count of the times in Australia I had heard remarks such
as “Muslims! They are such an angry people!”
An index to the level of media-fed Islamophobia in US schools comes with
the following 2015 New York Times report: “Fuelled by growing media coverage
of the controversy”, Stack and Peréz-Peñadec [2015, n.p.] reported how com-
plaints concerning a teacher’s request to have her students wear headscarves, to
lend authenticity to the learning experience sparked a school district wide school
closure, “amid an angry backlash, including a possible ‘risk of harm to school
officials’, over an assignment that asked high school students to copy a Muslim
creed in Arabic calligraphy”. A world geography class teacher in Staunton, VA.,
had asked her students “to try their hands at copying a passage known as the
Shahada, or declaration of faith in Islam”. The students took home a worksheet
stating: “‘This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy’”.
The absurdity of the parental response reached a point where:

some parents accused the teacher of trying to convert their children to Islam,
inciting an angry outcry in the largely rural district nestled in the Shenandoah
Valley. The Shahada is recited as part of daily prayer, and translates to, “There
is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God”. Speaking the
Shahada before witnesses is an important step in converting to Islam.
[Stack & Peréz-Peñadec: 2015, n.p.]

Stack and Peréz-Peñadec [2015, n.p.] further reported how, “the complaints
were further fuelled by the teacher inviting female students to wear a head
scarf, as many Muslim women do”. Tragically, “the number of angry calls and
emails to the district increased sharply as this week wore on”.
Of course, all of this points to a systemic failure of school educational sys-
tems to develop an appreciation of the beauty of social and cultural differences:

Any description of a rigorous education needs to include an understanding

of the power of differences that nurtures a critical sense of empathy . . .
empathy involves the ability to appreciate the anxieties and frustrations of
others, never to lose sight of the humanity of the marginalised, no mat-
ter how wretched the condition – and we may add, no matter how much
some of them may express their hatred for us.
[Kincheloe & Steinberg: 2013, 92]
 Young people and families living in risk society 69
Meanwhile, in the UK the media often reverberated with Islamophobic-incited
reports, provoking discourse of national risk. For example, in a sensational
report in a 2014 edition of Newsweek, Dejevsky [2014, n.p.] reported how on
widespread “claims that children are being indoctrinated with Islamism has
split Britain – starting at the top”. It was alleged there was a takeover of school
education by allegedly extreme elements of Islam. Dejevsky [2014, n.p.] in the
Newsweek: “claimed there was a conservative Muslim conspiracy to infiltrate
and take over as many as two dozen local schools”. It caused severe concern in
very many interested quarters. Indeed, “with the first official reports into the
allegations imminent, something akin to civil war was triggered at the highest
levels of British politics and threatening to precipitate a debate about Islam in
Britain that UK politicians have tried to avoid for decades” [Dejevsky: 2014,
n.p.]. An anonymous document had been sent to Birmingham City Council
late in 2013, which was subsequently leaked to the daily press claiming, “not
just Birmingham schools as targets for the imposition of a strict Islamic agenda,
but schools in other cities, including Bradford and Birmingham, which have
relatively large Muslim populations, and the borough of Tower Hamlets in east
London” [Dejevsky: 2014, n.p.]. This was the infamous Birmingham Trojan
horse affair, about which more will be detailed in Chapter 5.
Of course Islamophobia existed long before the emergence of risk soci-
ety theory. Indeed, Masnak [2010, cited in Rodwell: 2017, 95–96] argued
in researching Islamophobia it is important to contextualise it in a history of
Islamophobia. In a like vein of reasoning, we can consider, for example, how
Australians have a history of singling out Muslims as cruel villains, and the
role of the media in respect to children as an audience. For example, a major
source of a child’s entertainment during the first half of the 20th century was
reading Coles funny picture book – a “peculiar Australian, and more particularly
Melburnian institution of the hugely successful brainchild of the bookseller and
remainder merchant, E.W. Cole (1832–1918)” [Life in funny pictures: 2008,
n.p., cited in Rodwell: 2017, 95–96]. Either at school or at home, virtually
every Australian child graphically had encountered these images. Sure enough,
it contained the vivid portrayal of “the Cruel Turk”. In the words of one
modern-day reviewer: “I used to stare in astonishment at one such. It showed a
figure brandishing a scimitar and was entitled ‘Here is the cruel Turk, Where is
the poor Greek – a contemporary reference to various 19th-century European
conflicts and atrocities’” [Reid: 2014, n.p., cited in Rodwell: 2017, 95–96]. A
quick Google search of “the Cruel Turk” reveals just how common the expres-
sion is in Western society, and suggests one, but a powerful, source of Islamo-
phobia, in Australia at least.
Not surprisingly then, in discovering current powerful negative influences of
Islamophobia in schools, and the special role of social media in these develop-
ments, in respect to national instability, we see all this contributing to risk soci-
ety theory thinking. A common response in the countries under consideration
in this book involves tightening control of a country’s borders, and instituting
policies of “extreme vetting” of Muslim migrants.
70 Young people and families living in risk society
Paedophilia: morality, mental health and national wellbeing
In the light of the much-publicised Royal Commission into child abuse
[Royal Commission: n.d.], beginning in 2013, Australia Counselling [n.d.,
n.p.] reported how “children are the essence of purity and innocence in our
world”. However, “forming a disturbing mental image where your young
ones are vulnerable and exposed to the dangers of child abuse and molestation
is indeed a frightening thought”. Australia Counselling went on to explain
how “the cases of child molesters committing criminal acts are increasing at
an alarming rate”, and that “many such criminals are suffering from a psy-
chosexual disorder known as pedophilia (sic.) in which they have sexual fan-
tasies about young children with adults”. Indeed, for Australian Counselling,
“according to the National Institute of Mental Health, a typical pedophile
(sic.) molests an average of 117 children many of which are never reported.
Among these cases of child abuse two-thirds of the children are aged below
10 [years]”.
In the US, the UK and Australia the scourge of paedophilia challenges
children, families, school authorities and governments. Bruni [2012, n.p.]
from the New York Times asked: “Just how flagrant does a pedophile (sic.)
need to be before the people around him contact the police? Just how far
beyond seeming to force himself on a boy in a shower or loading up his
laptop with photos of little girls’ crotches does he have to go?” He then
went on to describe cases of the Roman Catholic Church in Missouri
being institutionalised. In one notorious case, “in May 2010, the principal
of a parochial school next door to the parish where Father Ratigan served
sent a memorandum to the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, as Laurie
Goodstein reported in The Times. It flagged his odd behavior, including his
habit of instructing children to reach into his pockets for candy”. Varying
only in detail, this kind of behaviour from members of various institutions
was repeated across the three countries under consideration in this present
book.
As readers may expect, tragically, paedophiles are just as prevalent in UK
school education. “How did the paedophile teachers at my school get away
with it for so long? . . . asks one of the BBC’s most respected voices in this
deeply personal and troubling account” [Peston: 2014, n.p.]. This is simply
one of untold similar stories appearing in the UK media. Reflecting on his
childhood in a London school, Peston [2014, n.p.] states how a teacher/pae-
dophile over a period of some 30 years, “permanently wrecked this student’s
relationship with his family, undermined his education and made it impossible
for him to find happiness as an adult. The victim says: ‘My personality and
emotions are so fractured that it is impossible to recognise anything resem-
bling a whole, a me’” [Peston: 2014, n.p.]. This and similar reports lay bare
the havoc that paedophile activity in school education has on the collective
mental health of individuals and families, and in the process wreaking havoc
on national wellbeing.
 Young people and families living in risk society 71
Gender equity and risk society
In a recent large study of the world at risk, gender equity is described as being
of central concern to international peace and wellbeing. Indeed,

Globally, a gender gap exists in education and in literacy. Proportionally,

more boys than girls attend primary school, and more men than women
are literate. This is overwhelmingly true historically and is due to tradition
that keep girls and women at home with little or no access to education.
[Larsen: 2010, 421]

Issues surrounding gender equity are a major challenge to risk society thinking.
Significantly, the economics writer for the New York Times addressed the
issue of the national cost of gender issues with the mathematics/science curric-
ular in the nation’s school educational systems, confirming for many the issue
of curriculum gender equality in school education economic issues surpassed
issues of social equality. Stirred by the most recent PISA results for 15-year-olds,
Porter [2015, n.p.] asked: “Why do the best-educated girls do worse at math
than top-educated boys?” Porter [2015] then reflected on the various twists
the question had prompted from research in the department of psychology at
Johns Hopkins University, “suggesting the gap might be caused by a ‘superior
male mathematical ability’”. It had been a furious debate with a “controversy
contributed to the ouster of Lawrence Summers from his post as the president
of Harvard”.
There are, however, demonstrated dangers in nation states managing their
risk management relative to its international educational achievement bench-
marks. By 2017, the OECD became interested in researching teenage school
educational students in respect to their wellbeing. The organisation found
“teenagers who feel part of a school community and enjoy good relations with
their parents and teachers are more likely to perform better academically and
be happier with their lives, according to the first OECD PISA assessment of
students’ wellbeing” [OECD: 2017, n.p.]. The OECD [2017, n.p.] research
also revealed:

Many students are very anxious about school work and tests and the analy-
sis reveals this is not related to the number of school hours or the frequency
of tests but with how supportive they feel their teachers and schools to be:
on average across OECD countries, 59% of students reported they often
worry that taking a test will be difficult, and 66% reported feeling stressed
about poor grades.

Even if students were well-prepared for their PISA assessments, “some 55% of
students say they are very anxious for a test”. Teenage girls, particularly, suffered
from PISA-induced stress: in all countries, girls reported greater schoolwork-
related anxiety than boys; and anxiety about schoolwork, homework and tests
72 Young people and families living in risk society
is negatively related to performance. Moreover, the survey showed the critical
role of teachers:

Teachers play a big role in creating the conditions for students’ well-being
at school and governments should not define the role of teachers solely
through the number of instruction hours. Happier students tend to report
positive relations with their teachers. Students in schools where life satisfac-
tion is above the national average reported a higher level of support from
their teacher than students in schools where life satisfaction is below average.
[OECD: 2017, n.p.]

Essentially, however gender debate about PISA scores came down to the old
nature-versus-nurture issue, but as the “debate raged, ending the underrepre-
sentation of women in science, technology, engineering and math became a
critical policy priority” [Porter: 2015, n.p.]. The issues confronting risk society
thinking emerged as an issue of national importance in many OECD coun-
tries. Moreover, “amid the din over top girls’ mathematical abilities, something
important was forgotten: what is happening that so many boys are falling behind
in pretty much everything else?” [Porter: 2015, n.p.]. Granted that girls were
missing out a great deal in gender equity in the school educational curriculum,
“six out of 10 underachievers in the O.E.C.D. – who fail to meet the baseline
standard of proficiency across the tests in math, reading and science – are boys.
That includes 15 percent of American boys, compared with only 9 percent of
girls” [Porter: 2015, n.p.]. In fact, “more boys than girls underperform in every
country tested except Luxembourg and Liechtenstein” [Porter: 2015, n.p.].
Readers in the UK, however, learnt it need not be like that, according to
Hertz [2016, n.p.]. Issues regarding gender equity may be deeply seated in
culture. Hertz had just visited a very special Icelandic school, one which UK
readers – and indeed, readers in other countries – could learn much from.
“It’s an ordinary morning for this single-sex class of three-year-olds at Laufás-
borg nursery school in Reykjavik [Iceland]. No dolls or cup-cake decorat-
ing on the lesson plan here. Instead, as Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir, the school’s
founder, tells me: ‘We are training [our girls] to use their voice. We are training
them in physical strength. We are training them in courage’”. Of course, we
should remember that the feminist struggle is also a class struggle. Girls from
middle class professional families fare much better than those from lower socio-
economic groups [Hooks: 2012].
The lesson came from Rebekka, “so tiny that, even on her tiptoes, arms
aloft, she cannot reach” the horizontal bars [Hertz: 2016, n.p.]. “One, two,
three”, her classmates count as her teacher lifts her up to the unvarnished
wooden monkey bar. “She hangs on, determinedly. When she reaches 10, she
jumps to the ground. ‘I am strong’, she shouts proudly” [Hertz: 2016, n.p.].
For Hertz [2016, n.p.], this reveals a fascinating approach to education, and
a popular one. In a country of only 330,000 people, there are nineteen such
primary and nursery schools, empowering girls from an early age. What does
 Young people and families living in risk society 73
this mean? Hertz [2016, n.p.] explained: “For the past six years, Iceland has
topped the World Economic Forum’s gender gap index, and looks likely to do
so again . . . The Economist recently named Iceland the world’s best place for
working women – in comparison, the UK came in at No. 24”. The corollary
to this reasoning, of course, is that other nations molly coddled the women
folk, breeding an attitude of dependence on males, and a belief that males were
the stronger gender.
Such are the challenges to risk society thinking, national governments have
responded to the imperatives signalled above in this section. Challenged by
these necessities, during the late 1980s and early 1990s national governments
developed policy guidelines for gender equity in school education. In Australia
the Gender equity: A framework for Australian schools was the result of the work
of the Gender Equity Taskforce and Reference Group, working under the
auspices of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). The Gender Equity Taskforce was responsible for
providing advice enabling improved educational outcomes for girls and boys in
Australian schools.
The Australian document recognised the changing nature of childhood and
adolescence. Throughout the published document often reference was made
to different groups of girls and boys, and at the same time acknowledging girls
and boys would not be seen as homogenous groups, and recognising differences
based on factors such as socio-economic status, cultural background, disability,
sexual preference or rural/urban location. Within the context of the vagaries
of Australian federalism, the document proposed broad areas for action which
would be taken up by state and territory school educational authorities, in
partnership with parents, by the systems and sectors in the states and territo-
ries in ways which are consistent with their authority and responsibility for
school education. It was all about advancing the cause of underachieving young
females in particular in the areas of:

• understanding the process of construction of gender

• curriculum, teaching and learning violence and school culture
• post-school pathways
• supporting change.

More than two decades on governments and school authorities – with Iceland
being a marked exception – continue to struggle to achieve these ends [Porter:
2015].

Bullying and sexuality: mental health and national wellbeing

Skelton [2002] alerted us to just how much “the cupboard is bare” on research
on issues associated with sexuality. Most people recognise school bullying, and
that associated with sexuality, is a social and educational menace, but how is it
connected with risk society theory? Furedi [1997/2006, 86] asked readers to
74 Young people and families living in risk society
consider it in his “culture of abuse”, which permeates risk society theory. In
his words: “Bullying has emerged as one of the most thriving of abuse rela-
tionships. Whereas in the past bullying was interpreted as one of the unpleas-
ant aspects of growing up, today it is seen as a pathology that deeply scars the
victim” [Furedi: 1997/2006, 86]. In a sense, bullying with young people has
been medicalised. Clearly, this view of bullying projects powerful nuances on
negative effects on national efficiency and productivity, let alone achievement
in school education. And that is without entering the moral dimensions of
bullying relationships.
Furedi [1997/2006, 86] also showed how poorly trained school heads in the
UK were bullying teachers, and most likely were themselves victims of bul-
lying. Bullying can become institutionalised. Indeed, “HR departments may
go out of their way to tick off the boxes to manage bullying effectively, yet at
the same time ignore the cultural and structural problems which can generate
much of the bullying in the first place” [White: 2013, 139]. A striking example
of a school’s organisational arrangements facilitating schoolyard bullying came
from a New South Wales school in 2017 when a concerned parent investigated
his son’s complaints. The father found on its website the school had a policy
protecting students against bullying, and one which stressed the role of the
school counsellor in any mediatory processes. But when the father questioned
the school administration why his son had not been provided with counselling
in his bullying experience, he was told the school counsellor did not have time
to conduct any counselling in this particular instance because she had been
assigned other duties in relation to the national standardised testing program
being conducted in the school at that time. “It was all a matter of priorities”
[Ramon: 2017, n.p.].
Let us return to Furedi’s [1997/2006, 86] earlier comments concerning
bullying as a “pathology that deeply scars the victim”. Surely, this marks a
decided step in the linkage of bullying and risk society theory. Let us return
to the notion of the medicalisation of bullying with young people. This has
prompted Liu and Graves [2011, 568] to contend: “Bullying continues to
emerge as an important pediatric (sic), family, psychiatric, and community
health issue, nurses can be at the forefront of leading sensitive, evidence-based
education, research, and intervention programs that promote the health of
both bullies as well as the schools and communities in which they reside”.
Indeed, these researchers insist “bullying is a behavior, not a diagnosis, and
research, assessment, and interventions targeted at childhood bullying must
take into account the culture, context, and individual characteristics in better
understanding risk factors for and interventions to reduce bullying” [Liu &
Graves: 2011, 568].
In her report for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Lodge [2014, 2]
stressed:

• Children who bully tend to have a wide array of conduct problems, and
show high levels of depressive, aggressive and delinquent behaviour.
 Young people and families living in risk society 75
• Bullying by children is considered a stepping-stone for criminal behav-
iours, increasing the risk of police contact when they become adults by
more than half.
• Children who bully increase their risk of later depression by 30%.

In Australia, governments perceived bullying in schools to be a national risk

issue, and consequently expended considerable resources to managing and less-
ening its impact [Lodge: 2014].
A variety of research illustrates the central role of families in the develop-
ment of bullying behaviours in school education students: parents who bully
and shout are likely to be conducive to that kind of behaviour in the offspring.
But of course, as Furedi’s [1997/2006, 86] research showed, bullying behav-
iour may also start with school principals and teachers. But, nevertheless, it
is clear: “Children who bully require greater support for behaviour change
through targeted approaches. Children who chronically bully may also have
mental health issues that require specialist intervention” [Lodge: 2014, 2]. Bul-
lying is not a life sentence: “Importantly, children who bully are not doomed
to bully all of their life. Effective and early treatment may interrupt the risk
of progressing from school bullying to later adverse life outcomes” [Lodge:
2014, 2].
And, indeed, “later life outcomes” in respect to bullying is most trouble-
some for children and families, and at the same time challenging a nation’s risk
society imperatives: the spider web of effects spans widely and indiscriminately
spreading costs at a national level:

Bullying others has been identified as a risk factor for other types of later
antisocial behaviour such as excessive drinking, and substance use [Kaltiala-
Heino et al: 2000] and later offending [Farrington: 1993; Sourander et al:
2006; White & Loeber: 2008]. Follow-up studies in Norway, for example,
indicate that, of those originally identified as bullies in the sixth to ninth
grades, 70 per cent were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24
[Olweus: 1997]. Given the link between bullying and later offending, bul-
lying prevention should lead to a later reduction in crime.
[Ttofi & Farrington: 2010, 427]

Of course, national costs aside, one can imagine the related affects that this
insidious school behaviour might have on related challenges to risk society
imperatives, such as family violence and mental health.
Bullying, school education and risk society theory has assumed new dimen-
sions with the onset of social media. “Brittan Heller has a hard job” announced
North [2016, n.p.] in the New York Times. As “the Anti-Defamation League’s
[ADL] first director of technology and society, she’ll be working with tech
companies to combat online harassment. The magnitude of her task became
clear as soon as the A.D.L. announced her hire earlier this month, when she
was deluged with anti-Semitic and sexist attacks”. In a presidential election
76 Young people and families living in risk society
year, Heller reported a vast increase in online bullying. The specific ways in
which this reaches into school education waits upon future research. However,
we do know that when bullying involves gay and lesbian high school students,
it can quickly escalate into violence.
“The first nationwide study to ask high school students about their sexuality
found that gay, lesbian and bisexual teenagers were at far greater risk for depres-
sion, bullying and many types of violence than their straight peers”, recorded
Hoffman [2016, n.p.]. Hoffman [2016, n.p.] reported Dr Jonathan Mermin, a
senior official at the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, declaring: “I
found the numbers heartbreaking”.

Families and young people inflicted by family violence

In tune with his view of risk society theory of our risk-obsessive societies,
Furedi [1997/2006, 87] claimed: “The culture of abuse has its intellectual foun-
dations in the field of family violence research”. And here, “during the past
fifteen years [dating from the early 1980s] the research provided by this field has
offered a relentless escalation of the number of victims”. According to Furedi
[1997/2006], this largely has been determined, not only the research focus, but
by an expanding definition of violence and abuse. For Furedi [1997/2006],
this is not a conscious drive by the researchers, but a subtle and all-embracing
social influence. This is due to risk society imperatives of an obsession with a
culture of abuse: witness the expanding definitions of rape. This is risk society
theory in its broadest social context. How does it relate to what happens in
school education?
Most school education authorities in the three countries we have under
consideration include in their curriculum learning experiences associated with
family violence. For example, LOVE BiTES “is an extremely successful” New
South Wales Mid-North Coast school-based domestic and family violence and
sexual assault prevention program. It is based on “best practice standards for
education programs as recommended by the Federal Government funded Aus-
tralian Domestic and Family Violence Clearing House and other leading aca-
demics in the area of violence against women” [What is Love Bites? n.d., n.p.].
Over 100,000 high school students throughout Australia have participated in
this “interactive and innovative program aimed at 14–16yr olds”. It also claims
“over 4000 workers and teachers have been trained in NSW” [What is Love
Bites? n.d., n.p.].
“Maybe he doesn’t hit you . . . ”: Those five words launched a campaign ear-
lier this year attracting thousands of people to social media to share their stories
of life inside a relationship plagued by emotional abuse and power imbalance.
The tweets were “collected into a downloadable kit for schools, youth cen-
ters and anyone else who feels the need to spread awareness about unhealthy
relationship dynamics” [Stevens: 2016, n.p.]. Writer, Zahira Kelly, started
the hashtag, and it quickly caught on. A teen services librarian approached
 Young people and families living in risk society 77
Cincinnati-based graphic artist Maya Drozdz, who in turn “was approached by
friend who wanted to turn the hashtag into something lasting and teachable for
young people” [Stevens: 2016, n.p.]. This is an example of a media story con-
firming Furedi’s [1997/2006] thesis of expanding definitions. The campaign,
ideally, “raised awareness across gender lines” [Stevens: 2016, n.p.]. The main
thrust of the online service was “about helping teenagers avoid dating abuse”
[Stevens: 2016, n.p.].
“Cyberstalking, non-consensual Internet pornography, exposing private
information, reputation damage, impersonation or false representation, and
other online attacks carried and amplified by networking technologies consti-
tute the new face of violence against women” [Hopkins & Ostini: 2015, n.p.].
Tragically, wrote Hopkins and Ostini [2015, n.p.], “technology-based domestic
violence also includes using Facebook to monitor, track and harass victims’
children, friends and family members”. This research showed how “much
pervasive and intimate abuses of trust further isolate victims from their social
supports – especially when victims are compelled to close down or withdraw
altogether from social media”. By 2017, Australian teachers in some educa-
tional jurisdictions were participating in mandatory professional development
programs dealing with family violence [Dept. of Ed., Tas. Gov.: 2017].
In a perverse twist to Rose’s [2009] notions of the cyber panopticon, and at
the same time reinforcing Furedi’s [1997/2006] expanding definition of abuse
thesis, for most people – young people included – image and reputation are
everything. Indeed, “perpetrators can devastate their partner or ex-partner
psychologically, socially and financially, while remaining cloaked in anonym-
ity from cyberspace”, claimed Hopkins and Ostini [2015, n.p.]. US research
showed four stalking victims reporting suffering, intimidation and invasions
of privacy or some form of cyberstalking. Significantly, the majority of these
victims identified the stalker as a former intimate partner. The US-based Pew
Research Centre reported 66 per cent of Internet users experiencing online
harassment, with their most recent incident occurred on a social networking
site. This was by far the most common form of online harassment. Only
16 per cent of those surveyed experienced harassment and abuse in online
gaming environments [Duggan: 2014, n.p.]. The abuse hosted on social media
platforms like Facebook waits upon future research.

Young people and families inflicted by obesity

“For Americans”, wrote Fukuyama [1992, 306], “the health of their bodies –
what they eat and drink, the exercise they get, the shape they are in – has
become a far greater obsession than the moral questions that tormented their
forebears”. Perhaps, we may add the UK and Australia to that observation.
Why, however, has this attitude appeared? A brief study of risk aversion by
governments, school educational authorities, communities and parents provide
a clue.
78 Young people and families living in risk society
In reviewing Tim Gill’s [2007] No fear: Growing up in a risk aversion society,
Mesure [2014] wrote about increasing societal and governmental pressures to
have children “cocooned in a cottonwool environment”:

We like our playgrounds cushioned and our children accounted for: they’re
signed up to music lessons, drama classes and organised sports as soon as
they can walk and talk – the latest being mini rugby clubs for tots as young
as two. “The dominant parental norm is that being a good parent is being
a controlling parent”, says Tim Gill, author of No Fear, which critiques our
risk-averse society. But at what cost? And what’s the alternative? And most
importantly, when are we letting them play?
[Mesure: 2014, n.p.]

What cost? According to Wiedersehn [2017] from Australia’s 7 News, one

result is a dramatic fall in the sale of young people’s bicycles. Admittedly, a
general fixation for screen-based entertainment is also a contributing factor.
Wiedersehn [2017] wrote:

A significant drop in the number of children’s bikes sold has raised alarm
bells among public health experts concerned about a lack of physical activ-
ity among young Australians.
Data from the Australian Health Policy Collaboration at Victoria Uni-
versity shows children’s bike sales have dropped by 22 per in the past decade.
In the past 10 years, sales have dropped by 110,000 units – from 492,000
to 382,000.
[Wiedersehn: 2017, n.p.]

For the University of Sydney’s Professor Chris Rissel, director of the NSW Office
of Preventive Health, “this is an unhealthy trend that needs to be corrected”
Indeed, Wiedersehn [2017, n.p.] reported Rissel as stating “the fact that children
don’t have bikes means that their not likely to be riding them”. How, otherwise
are they spending their leisure time – exercising their fingers on play stations?
Obesity in young people looms large as a factor impacting heavily on national
risk assessments. While school authorities have school education playing a role
to alleviate these concerns, through such programs as physical education school
canteen policies, largely it is a problem wherein governments centre their poli-
cies on the community-at-large, and where the medical professions play a large
adversarial role, for example, in advocating for a sugar tax.
As governments grapple with strategies to alleviate the national risks asso-
ciated with obesity, it is being shown that a sugar tax strategy, however, is
high problematic and contested. “Results [in the US] demonstrate that the . . .
model significantly overestimates the weight loss from reduced energy intake
by 63 per cent in year one, 346 per cent in year five, and 764 per cent in year
10, which leads to unrealistic expectations for obesity intervention strategies”
[Lin, et al: 2011, 329]. While the sugar tax “is estimated to generate $5.8 bil-
lion a year in revenue [it] is found to be regressive, although it represents about
1 per cent of household food and beverage spending” [Lin et al.: 2011, 329].
 Young people and families living in risk society 79
Some generalities can be categorically stated concerning the obesity issues
with the young: They are culture- and social-bound. In Gordon’s words: “Since
the early 1980s, when papers on cultural influences on eating disorders began
to appear in the literature, it has been evident to many observers that eating
disorders are unique among psychiatric disorders in the degree to which social
and cultural factors influence their epidemiology” [Gordon: 2001, 1]. Perhaps,
we can add the influences of globalism, risk society and politics.
“It is a national epidemic that leaves its sufferers trapped inside their own
bodies; isolated, depressed and misunderstood” [Robinson: 2017, n.p.]. Indeed,
Robinson [2017, n.p.] further reported how “obesity affects almost a quarter
of Australians, but help can be almost impossible to find”. To underscore the
report Robinson [2017] cited a report from the Chair of the Council of Presi-
dents of Medical Colleges Professor Nick Talley in an article published in the
Medical Journal of Australia. Talley insisted the lack of a coordinated national
policy was unacceptable. To illustrate the link between the risks of national
obesity and school education, Robinson [2017, n.p.] reported how “Renee
Gilbert and her sister Zoe cannot ever remember a time their weight was
normal. ‘I was bullied from basically kindergarten until I finished year 12, just
because I wasn’t as skinny as all the other girls in my year’, Zoe said” [Robin-
son: 2017, n.p.].
According to Colquhuon [1990, cited in Gard & Wright: 2001, 536], prior
to 1960, obesity was rarely mentioned in the medical literature. However, by
the early 1980s concern had grown considerably. Comparative studies in the
1980s pointed to the increasing weight of the “average” woman and man in
populations in the UK, North America and Australia. With the onset of risk
society thinking at many levels of health and physical education policymak-
ing, “by the 1990s a preoccupation with overweight/obesity dominated many
governments’ health concerns” [Gard & Wright: 2001, 536, cited in Rodwell:
2017]. These researchers showed how “in the US, Healthy People 2000 puts the
prevention of obesity at the top of its list of health concerns” [536].
A word of caution, however, from Burrows and Wright [2004, 90] who
claimed: “Contemporary health discourses position children themselves as the
key to the target for intervention, yet as many critical analysts have discerned . . .
the proliferation of health risks associated with childhood has contributed to
the burgeoning attachment of discourses of blame and responsibilities to fami-
lies”. In the interests of risk society imperatives, from risk-free movement of
children to and from school, to obesity, through government policies families
increasingly are being asked to take ever-increasing responsibilities. “What is
relatively new is the expansion of boundaries and responsibilities of the family
so that almost every disposition and behaviour of children is potentially ame-
nable to family regulation” (emphasis in original) [Burrows & Wright: 2004,
90]. We might add that this is occurring more in conjunction with school
educational policy, which is increasingly coming under the influence of medi-
cal paradigms.
A constructionist analysis assists here. As Atkinson and Gregory [2008,
600] showed: “A constructionist view of medical knowledge does not have
80 Young people and families living in risk society
to remain blind to the role of interests in the production of medical entities of
the promotion of particular versions of medical knowledge”. Indeed, anybody
who has watched evening TV will attest to the wide range of commercial
interests in supposedly arresting the nation’s slide into gross risk through obe-
sity, now unashamedly portrayed as a medical condition. Further, Atkinson and
Gregory [2008, 600] make the point: “. . . a claim that medical knowledge is
constructed does not imply that it is whimsically constructed out of thin air
or that it bears no particular relation to material circumstances”. For example,
there are a plethora of commercial, social and political interests at hand to
benefit from the claim that obesity is a socially constructed notion. Indeed,
medical knowledge reflects socially distributed interests, including the interests
of employers and insurers and the interests of medical practitioners themselves.
Let alone, in the instance of obesity, the vast range of the weight reduction
industry and its associates including commercial TV.

Analysis and conclusions

By the second decade of the 21st century, challenged by a kaleidoscope of
socio-economic risk society pressures, young people and their families may
well look to the institutions of school education for support and guidance.
Certainly, for the most part these young people face a problematic future, and
one most likely very different than that faced by their teachers of the school
educational policy bureaucrats who help shape their lives.
This chapter has demonstrated how youth identities have been so dramati-
cally restructured in late modernity. This has occurred during a time when
increasingly national governments face a plethora of challenges from global-
ism impacting on the nation’s youth. National governments have looked to its
traditional and emerging institutions as means of surveillance and control. For
these governments, school education may provide unique opportunities in the
provision of surveillance measures as well as policies for control.
Racism provided a major challenge to the national governments and their
policies associated with risk society. Through young people, their families
and societies, racism clearly accentuates challenges to risk society: it divides
and renders gross social discords, challenging government institutions such as
schools. The exponential use of social media only extends the challenges of
racism, and often schools are at the centre of these challenges.
Challenging national wellbeing, and often through school education, Islam-
ophobia challenges young people, families and the media, also demanding con-
stant attention from risk society conscious nation states. Again, social media
offers additional trials. For some researchers, however, school education has a
special role to play in alleviating Islamophobia. Of course, this is the test for the
effectiveness of any school education system, whether considering risk society
imperatives or not. So, too with the scourge of racism in school education.
Paedophilia has emerged as a national challenge in respect to morality, men-
tal health and national wellbeing. Often, schools are at the centre of these
 Young people and families living in risk society 81
concerns, as national governments assume responsibility from the demonstrably
failed authority of traditional institutions such as churches. Managing harm
reduction caused by institutionalised paedophilia now has become a major
concern for national governments.
National gender equality programs may assist risk society conscious gov-
ernments. While most nations utilise school education programs to enhance
gender equality, we have seen in this section how some nations with a history
and culture of gender equality fare much better. There is a demonstrated need
for gender equality to break from its historical and cultural past, and in the
interests of risk society imperatives national governments are asserting increas-
ingly powerful roles.
Often associated with national moral panics, nationally developed poli-
cies and programs regarding bullying and sexuality increasingly require from
school educational institutions new directions and purposes: mental health and
national wellbeing are at stake with these risk society challenges.
Families and young people inflicted by family violence, provide another
concern for risk society conscious national governments. Often through
school educational policies and programs, in attempting to manage risk soci-
ety imperative, national governments are being required to manage these
concerns.
Young people and families inflicted by obesity, principally through national
health, also challenge a nation’s wellbeing. No longer is obesity a moral prob-
lem, but rather a massive challenge to risk society mindful national govern-
ments. Increasingly, national governments are requiring school education to
provide policies, programs and personnel to assist here.

References
Ahn, J., Subramaniam, M., Fleischmann, K.R., Waugh, A., Walsh, G. & Druin, A. (2012).
Youth identities as remixers in an online community of storytellers: Attitudes, strate-
gies, and values. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, pp. 1–10.
(26–31 October). Retrieved 29 April 2017 from [Link]
uploads/2012/07/ASIST2012_Scidentity_final_0711.pdf.
Andrews, K. (2015). Racism is still alive and well, 50 years after the UK’s Race Relations
Act. The Guardian (8 December). Retrieved 13 April 2016 from [Link]/
commentisfree/2015/dec/08/50-anniversary-race-relations-act-uk-prejudice-racism.
Apple, M., & K. Buras (eds). (2006). The subaltern speak: Curriculum, power, and educational
struggles. New York: Routledge.
Ariès, P. (1960/62). Centuries of childhood: a social history of family life. Trans. Robert Baldick.
New York: Vintage.
Atkinson, P. & Gregory, M. (2008) Constructions of medical knowledge. In J.A. Holstein &
J.F. Gubrium (Eds) Handbook of constructionist research. New York/London: Guildford
Press. pp. 593–608.
Bardsley, D.E. (2007). Education for all in a global era? The social justice of Australian sec-
ondary school education in a risk society. Journal of Education Policy. 22(5). (September).
pp. 493–508(16).
82 Young people and families living in risk society
Beck, U. (1992/2007). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bruni, F. (2012). Suffer the children, New York Times (10 September). Retrieved 3 Febru-
ary 2017 from [Link]/2012/09/11/opinion/[Link].
Burrows, L. & Wright, J. (2004). The discursive production of childhood, identity and
health. In J. Evans, B. Davies & J. Wright (Eds) Body Knowledge and Control: Studies in the
sociology of physical education and health, London/New York: Routledge, pp. 81–95.
Cieslik, M. & Pollock, G. (2002). Introduction: Studying young people in late modernity. In
M. Cieslik & G. Pollock (Eds) Young people in risk society: the restructuring of youth identities
and transitions in late modernity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 9–29.
Clark, L. (2012). 88,000 children branded racists: Pupils as young as three reported over
name-calling. Daily Mail (23 May). Retrieved 1 February 2017 from [Link].
[Link]/news/article-2148621/Britains-schools-record-115-racist-incidents-day-teachers-
[Link].
Coleman, J. & Hendry, L. (1999). The nature of adolescence (3rd ed.). London: Routledge
Colquhoun, D. (1990). Images of healthism in health-based physical education. In D. Kirk &
R. Tinning (Eds) Physical education, curriculum and culture: critical issues in the contemporary
crisis. London: Falmer Press, pp. 121–140.
Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, “risk society” and the media: a catastrophic view? European
Journal of Communication (March) 13(1) pp. 5–32.
Dejevsky, M. (2014). Are British Muslim schools teaching hatred? Newsweek (15 June).
Retrieved 2 February 2017 from [Link]
schools-teaching-hatred-254835?rm=eu.
Department of Education, Tasmanian Government (2017). Students learn about family violence
against women – from past to present (27 September). Retrieved 5 October 2017 from www.
[Link]/2017/09/students-learn-family-violence-women-past-present/.
Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Pew Research Centre (22 October). Retrieved
5 October 2016 from [Link]/2014/10/22/online-harassment/.
Durante, M. (2011). The online construction of personal identity through trust and privacy.
Information. 2. pp. 594–620. Retrieved 29 April 2017 from [Link]/journal/
information.
Evans, C. & Parry, N. (2000). Vessels of progressivism? Tasmanian state girls and eugenics.
In M. Crotty, J. Germov & G. Rodwell (Eds) ‘“A race for a place”’: eugenics, Darwinism and
social thought and practice in Australia: proceedings of the history and sociology of eugenics confer-
ence, Newcastle: University of Newcastle, pp. 247–255.
Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed), Crime
and Justice, Vol., 17, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 381–458.
France, A. (2008). Risk factor analysis and the youth question, Journal of Youth Studies. (Feb-
ruary), 11 (1), pp. 1–15.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.
Furedi, F. (1997/2006). Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation (2nd Edn).
London: Cassell.
Gard, M. & Wright, J. (2001). Managing uncertainty: obesity discourses and physical educa-
tion in a risk society. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 20, pp. 535–549.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes asso-
ciated with poverty. American Behavioural Scientist. 34(4). March/April. pp. 416–430.
Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk aversion society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian
Foundation.
 Young people and families living in risk society 83
Goddard, H.H. (1913). The Kallikak family: a study of the heredity of feeblemindedness. New
York: Macmillan.
Goldman, S., Booker, A. & McDermott, M. (2008). Mixing the digital, social, and cultural:
Learning, identity, and agency in youth participation. In D. Buckingham (Ed.) Youth,
identity, and digital media. The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on
Digital Media and Learning: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 185–206.
Gordon, R.A. (2001). Eating disorders and west: a culture-bound syndrome unbound. In
M. Nasser, M.A Katzman & R.A Gordon (Eds.) Eating disorders and cultures in transition.
East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 1–24.
Gray, J. & Beresford, Q. (2002). Aboriginal non-attendance at school: Revisiting the debate.
Australian Educational Researcher. 29(1). pp. 27–42.
Gudmundsson, G. (2000). Youth research at the crossroads: Sociological and interdisciplin-
ary youth research in the Nordic countries. Journal of Youth Studies, 3(2) pp. 127–166.
Haller, M.H. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Hertz, N. (2016). Why Iceland is the best place in the world to be a woman. The Guardian
(25 October). Retrieved 4 February 2017 from [Link]/lifeandstyle/2016/
oct/24/iceland-best-place-to-be-women-equal-gender-maternity.
Heywood, C. (2001). History of childhood. New York: Wiley.
Hoffman, J. (2016). Gay and lesbian high school students report ‘“heartbreaking”’ levels of
violence. New York Times (11 August). Retrieved 5 October 2016 from [Link].
com/2016/08/12/health/[Link].
Hooks, B. (2012). Feminist class struggle, pp. 227–231. In J. Solar, C.S. Walsh, A. Craft,
J. Rix & K. Simmons. Transforming practices: Critical issues in equity, diversity and education.
Milton Keynes, UK: Trenthan Books.
Hopkins, S. & Ostini, J. (2015). Domestic violence and Facebook: harassment takes new
forms in the social media age. The Conversation (30 November). Retrieved 5 October
2016 from [Link]
takes-new-forms-in-the-social-media-age-50855.
Jones, P.D. (2017). Primum non nocere: rethinking our policies on out-of-home care in Aus-
tralia. Medical Journal of Australia (Perspective), 206 (10). p. 1.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, R., Marttune, M. & Rantanen, P. (2000). “Bullying at school: an
indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders”, Journal of Adolescence, 23, pp. 661–674.
Kincheloe, J.L. & Steinberg, S.R. (2013). Why teach against Islamophobia? Striking the
Empire back. In J. Solar, C.S. Walsh, A. Craft, J. Rix & K. Simmons (Eds.) Transforming
practices: Critical issues in equity, diversity and education. Milton Keynes, UK: Trenthan
Books, pp. 91–102.
Larsen, U. (2010). Literacy and educational access. In World at Risk: A global issues sourcebook
(2nd ed.) Washington, DC, CQ Press, pp. 418–441.
Life in funny pictures (2008). The Australian (1 March). Retrieved 11 May 2016 from www.
[Link]/news/life-in-funny-pictures/story-e6frg6n6-1111115651471.
Lin, B-H, Smith, T.A., Lee, J-Y & Hall, K.D. (2011). Measuring weight outcomes for
obesity intervention strategies: The case of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Economics and
Human Biology. 9. pp. 329–341.
Liu, J. & Graves, N. (2011). Childhood bullying: a review of constructs, contexts, and nurs-
ing implications. Public Health Nursing. 28(6). pp. 556–568.
Lodge, J. (2014). Children who bully at school. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Child
Family Community Australia, Paper # 27. Australian Government: Canberra.
84 Young people and families living in risk society
Masnak, T. (2010). Western hostility towards Muslims: a history of the present. In A.
Shryock (Ed) Islamophobia/Islamophilia: beyond the politics of enemy and friend. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
McBain, S. (2014). Anxiety nation: why are so many of us so ill at ease? New States-
man (17 April). Retrieved 11 October 2017 from [Link]/2014/04/
anxiety-nation-why-are-so-many-us-so-ill-ease.
McGregor, G. & Mills, M. (2010). Alternative education sites and marginalised young peo-
ple: “‘I wish there were more schools like this one’”. European Educational Research
Association. Retrieved 29 March 2017 from [Link]
tream/handle/10072/42293/73542_1.pdf;sequence=1.
McGregor, R. (2000). “Breed out the color”: Reproductive management for White Aus-
tralia, pp. 61–70. In M. Crotty, J. Germov & G. Rodwell (eds) ‘A race for a place’: eugenics,
Darwinism and social thought and practice in Australia: proceedings of the history and sociology of
eugenics conference, University of Newcastle, Newcastle.
Medco (n.d.). America’s State of Mind Report. Retrieved 11 October 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/medicinedocs/documents/s19032en/[Link].
Mesure, S. (2014). When we stop children taking risk, do we stunt their emotional growth?
Independent (23 May). Retrieved 29 August 2019 from [Link]/life-
style/health-and-families/features/when-we-stop-children-taking-risks-do-we-stunt-
[Link].
Miles, J. (2017). Australia should develop policies to encourage disadvantaged families to
have fewer children: academic. The Courier-Mail (21 May). Retrieved 26 May 2017
from [Link]/news/queensland/australia-should-develop-policies-to-
encourage-disadvantaged-families-to-have-less-children-academic/news-story/14f84400
6f33ea678372f375cbd1ae71.
Mitchell, M. (2014). Generation next 2014: the impact of racism on young people’s well-being.
Human Rights Commission (25 July). Retrieved 1 February 2017 from [Link].
[Link]/news/speeches/generation-next-2014-impact-racism-young-people-s-well-being.
Mokdad, A.H., Ford, E.S., Bowman, B.A., Dietz, W.H., Vinicor, F., Bales, V. S. & Marks,
J.S. (2003). Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health Risk factors, 2001
(brief Report). Journal of the American Medical Association, 289 (1). pp. 76–79.
North, A. (2016). What it’s like to fight online hate. New York Times (26 September).
Retrieved 5 October 2016 from [Link]
what-its-like-to-fight-online-hate/?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCyberbullying&ac
tion=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&vers
ion=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0.
OECD (2017). Most teenagers happy with their lives but schoolwork anxiety and bullying
an issue (19 April). Retrieved 21 April 2007 from [Link]/education/most-teen
[Link].
O’Grady, S. (2016). New plan to boost numbers walking to school. Griffith University
(23 June). Retrieved 4 October 2016 from [Link]
06/23/new-plan-to-boost-numbers-walking-to-school/.
Olweus, D. (1997). “Bully/victim problems in school facts and intervention”, European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495–510.
Paley, M. (2017). Home on the range: Modernity and tradition meet in a Pakistani village.
National Geographic. 231(4) April. pp. 64–72.
Pavlidis, A. (2009). The diverse logics of risk: young people’s negotiations of the risk society.
TASA Conference, Canberra (Retrieved 5 January 2018 from [Link]
content/uploads/2015/03/[Link] .
 Young people and families living in risk society 85
Peston, R. (2014). How did the paedophile teachers at my school get away with it for so long?
Daily Mail (7 August). Retrieved 4 February 2017 from [Link]/news/arti
cle-2718468/How-did-paedophile-teachers-school-away-long-Were-liberal-Seventies-
values-partly-blame-asks-one-BBC-s-respected-voices-deeply-personal-troubling-
[Link].
Porter, E. (2015). Gender gap in education cuts both ways. New York Times (10 March).
Retrieved 4 February from [Link]/2015/03/11/business/gender-gap-in-
[Link].
Prescott, H.M. (2004). “I was a teenage dwarf ”: The social construction of “normal” ado-
lescent growth and development in the Unites States. In Stern, A.M. & Markel, H. (Eds).
Formative years: children’s health in the United States, 1880–2000. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press, pp. 53–79.
Privot, M. (2004). Islam in the media: a pathway to Islamophobia. In I. Ramberg (2004).
Islamophobia and its consequences on young people. European Youth Centre Budapest. Direc-
torate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe, pp. 131–152.
Quiggin, J. (2007). The risk society: social democracy in an uncertain world. Centre for Policy
Development: Occasional Paper # 2. ( July). Retrieved 21 September 2017 from http://
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/JohnQuiggin_The_Risk_Society_CPD_
[Link].
Racism: It Stops with Me (n.d.). Retrieved 1 February 2017 from [Link]
[Link].
Racism. No Way! (2014). Anti racism education in Australian schools. Retrieved 23 June
2018 from [Link]
Ramberg, I. (2004). Islamophobia and its consequences on young people. European Youth Centre
Budapest. Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe.
Ramon, C. (2017). Personal correspondence, Singleton, NSW (31 June).
Reid, S. (2014). On Myrtle Rose White and revisiting an old friend. Secondhand Rows
(4 March). Retrieved 11 May 2016 from [Link]/_blog/2nd-hand-rows/
calendar/2014/3/.
Reimers, F. (n.d.). Compensatory Education: United States, policies and programs in
Latin America. Retrieved 31 March 2017 from [Link]
pages/1877/[Link].
Reuben, A. (2015). Gap between rich and poor ‘“keeps growing”’. BBC News (21 May).
Retrieved 29 March 2017 from [Link]/news/business-32824770.
Robinson, N. (2017). Australia “running behind” in obesity prevention policy, health spe-
cialists say. ABC News (13 February). Retrieved 14 February 2017 from [Link]/
news/2017-02-13/australia-running-behind-in-obesity-prevention/8263816.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Moral panics and school educational policy. New York/ London: Routledge.
Rose, N. (2009). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology. 40. pp. 321–339.
Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse [n.d]. Retrieved
29 August 2016 from [Link]/share-your-story?gclid=
CjwKEAjwl4q-BRDtzJmSk-uGunkSJACmCOY-bfl46jDMNBxukzNZYcLHuH7b_
HiW9GLFn9Le-FraIxoCKIDw_wcB.
Ruddick, S. (2003). The politics of aging: globalization and the restructuring of youth and
childhood. Antipode. pp. 334–362. Retrieved 29 April 2017 from [Link]
edu/igst404/files/2014/01/[Link].
Sharland, E. (2006). Young people, risk taking and risk making: Some thoughts for social
work. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 7(1). Retrieved 29 April 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/[Link]/fqs/article/view/56/115.
86 Young people and families living in risk society
Skelton, T. (2002). Research on youth transitions: Some critical interventions. In M. Cies-
lik & G. Pollock, G. (Eds) (2002). Young people in risk society: the restructuring of youth identi-
ties and transitions in late modernity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 131–153.
Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niemela, S., Nuutila, A., Helenius, H., Sillanmaki, L., Piha,
J., Tamminene, T., Kumpulainen, K., Moilenen, I. & Almiqvistt, F. (2006). “Childhood
predictors of male criminality: a prospective population-based follow-up study from age 8
to late adolescence”, Journal of American Academy of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45,
pp. 578–586.
Stack, L. & Peréz-Peñadec, R. (2015). Lesson on Islam shuts down Virginia school dis-
trict. New York Times (17 December). Retrieved 2 February 2017 from [Link].
com/2015/12/19/us/[Link].
Starr, T.J. (2015). 7 Ways Racism Affects the Lives of Black Children. Alternet, Human
Rights (8 May). Retrieved 1 February 2017 from [Link]/civil-liberties/7-
ways-racism-affects-lives-black-children.
Strauss, V. (2017). Black doll found hanging in school locker room. Superintendent rejects
student claim it was “foolish prank.” Washington Post (12 October). Retrieved 13 October
2017 from [Link]/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/10/12/black-doll-
found-hanging-in-school-locker-room-superintendent-rejects-student-claim-it-was-
foolish-prank/?utm_term=.73673751d02d.
Strobel, N.A. & Ward, J. (2012). Education programs for Indigenous Australians about sexu-
ally transmitted infections and bloodborne viruses: Resource sheet no. 14 for the Clos-
ing the Gap Clearinghouse. Australian Government: Closing the Gap Clearing House.
Retrieved 29 March 2017 from [Link]/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Con
tent/Publications/2012/[Link] .
Teese, R & J. Polesel (2003). Undemocratic schooling: Equity and quality in mass secondary school-
ing in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
The psychology of pedophilia (n.d.). Australia Counselling. Retrieved 3 February 2017 from
[Link]/physical-emotional-health/psychology-pedophilia/.
Ttofi, M. & Farrington, D.P. (2010). Brookman, F., Maguire, M. School bullying: risk fac-
tors, theories and interventions, pp. 427–457. In Pierpoint, H. & Bennett, T., Handbook
on crime. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Tuohy, W. (2017). Limit battlers breeding? Herald Sun (Opinion) (25 May). pp. 44–45.
Ulanowicz, A. (n.d.). Philippe Ariès. Retrieved 12 February 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/pdf/[Link] .
United Nations Children’s Fund (2010). Using education to reduce risk: An overview
of disaster risk reduction and how it is promoted through education in the SEE/CIS
region. Retrieved 29 March 2017 from [Link]/ceecis/Using_Engl_e-book(1).
pdf .
What is Love Bites? (n.d.). Growing respect. Retrieved 5 October 2016 from [Link]
[Link]/love-bites/about/what-is-love-bites/.
White, N.A. & Loeber, R. (2008). “Bullying and special education as predictors of serious
delinquency”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(4). pp. 380–397.
White, R. & J. Wyn. (2008). Youth and society: exploring the social dynamics of youth experience
(2nd ed.) South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
White, S. (2013). An introduction to the psychodynamics of workplace bullying. London. Karnak
Publishing.
 Young people and families living in risk society 87
Wiedersehn, S. (2017). Kids bike sales fall raises health alarm. 7 News (29 August). Retrieved
29 August 2017 from [Link]
raises-health-alarm/.
Yuhas, A. (2017). Is Trump’s “extreme vetting” immigration order unconstitutional? The
Guardian (28 January). Retrieved 3 February 2017 from [Link]/us-news/
2017/jan/27/trump-muslim-vetting-constitutional.
4 Risk society theory, neoliberalism,
school education, mainstream
media and social media

Introduction
Arguably, outside the family, and even possibly outside of school education,
mainstream media and social media asserts the most powerful influence on
young people. This is done, however, through the dominance of the zeitgeist
of neoliberalism and globalism, which increasingly has been penetrating school
educational policy, bringing with it masses of changes, including not least edu-
cational restructuring, new accountabilities and testing, mediatisation of edu-
cation policy, neoliberal-inspired policy as numbers, the global policy field and
policy borrowing, and vast changes to pedagogies curricular [Lingard: 2014].
“Risk society” language increasingly has become imbedded in the mass
media, with the general public becoming progressively aware of the risk –
often, merely perceived – confronting their nation. It is as if nations exist on
the edge of a precipice. A new role for the media is not only to report news,
but to warn the public of possible national risks and catastrophes, with politi-
cians “feeding” on these circumstances for their party’s political purposes.
Now, however, politicians and members of society-at-large need not wait
on pushing their concerns to the media. In the social media they have greatly
increased their responses to risk society. The “Tweet Machine” can be brought
into play, anywhere, any time, and this in part has contributed to young people
progressively being a part of risk society concerns, not least of all because they
are the greatest consumers of social media.
As school education adapts to the many new circumstances of the risk soci-
ety nation, other immense changes are afoot. The social media, however, are
only a part of the combined phenomena of globalisation and ICT, bringing
massive changes to traditional school education: witness, for example, how old
ideas concerning school libraries have been undergoing change.
As all of this is occurring, risk society is impacting on school education in
other ways, especially through politicians and the media. For example, dog-
whistling school education policy has evolved to the extent that it has become
almost an art form, adopting new and subtle ways of eliciting public responses,
often resulting in measurable changes to national curricular. Increasingly, prin-
cipals, teachers and members of school communities are required to engage in
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 89
reflexive thought in an attempt to make sense of the joint impact of the media
and school education policy.

Risk, neoliberalism, media deregulation and school

educational policy
Zajda [2015] reckoned internationally, in respect to neoliberal systems globali-
sation, designed to achieve competitiveness, quality and diversity have impacted
on education reforms in four ways:

• competitiveness-driven reforms;
• finance-driven reforms;
• equity-driven reforms; and
• quality-driven reforms.

Here it is argued “forces of globalisation” have contributed to the ongoing

globalisation of schooling and higher education curricular, together with the
accompanying global standards of excellence, globalisation of academic assess-
ment (OECD, PISA), global academic achievement syndrome (OECD, World
Bank), and global academic elitism and league tables, amounting to the posi-
tioning of distinction, privilege, excellence and exclusivity.
Risk society thinking has been harnessed within the forces of globalisation,
and facilitating “the transmission of ideologies through a range of such global
organizations as:

• the United Nations;

• the World Bank;
• the International Monetary Fund;
• the OECD”.
[O’Donoghue: 2017, 50]

Not only stimulating a range of international educational “brands” such as the

Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UK) and the International School
Services, school education in the US, the UK and Australia has embraced the
International Baccalaureate (IB). Indeed, the extent of the continuing influ-
ence of globalisation on schools and colleges became very obvious during the
early years of the 21st century. Included in this, for example, is the growing
number of research articles devoted to IB in Australia. IB has become a com-
modity aimed at a discrete school education market. For example, a drive down
Portrush Road in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs during December 2014 showed a
Catholic girls’ private college in a large kerbside placard advertising its success
in gaining IB approval [Rodwell: 2017b, 155–157].
Moreover, research by Arber and Blackmore [2010, 2] on the effect of
globalisation on Australian school education and its implications for teachers
showed: “Globalisation has opened up new markets of educational products
90 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
(curriculum, pedagogy and assessment), and new markets in students and for
teachers . . . Australian schools are increasingly considered a way for inter-
national students to access universities”. Indeed, according to this research:
“Teachers with English language skills are in high demand in overseas inter-
national schools . . . This has significant implications for the organization of
schooling, curriculum and pedagogy in Victoria, and for teacher career paths
and professional identities”.
On the 30th anniversary of the publication of A nation at risk, Zhao [2015]
published in the highly respected educational journal, Society, a treatise of what
his research had shown concerning the plethora of educational “reforms” in
the US discussed in this book. He began by claiming “America is not the only
nation that has been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational
disarmament in the world” [Zhao: 2015, 129] Indeed, for Zhao [2015, 129]:

Over the past few decades, many Western democratic and developed
nations have engaged in such suicidal educational reforms. Led by the
same mistaken assumptions that gave birth to A Nation at Risk, Australia,
the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others have made or are about to
make similar changes in their education systems. These changes, just like
the changes the U.S. has made, are simply trying to do the wrong thing
more right. They are putting the world at risk.

Significantly, for Zhao [2015, 129], “globalization and technology advances

have drastically expanded the spectrum of skills that are valuable”, but govern-
ments and educational authorities generally have chosen to ignore “all we need
is the courage and wisdom to abandon the outdated model and begin working
on the new one”.
To this end, Zhao [2015, 134] put forward a long list of recommendations,
inter alia, which included:

• Stop prescribing and imposing on children a narrow set of content through

common curriculum standards and testing.
• Start personalizing education to support the development of unique, cre-
ative, and entrepreneurial talents.
• Start empowering the children by liberating their potentials, capitalizing
on their passion, and supporting their pursuits.
• Start giving the ownership of learning to the children.
• Start engaging them in learning opportunities that exist in the global com-
munity, beyond their class and school walls.
• Stop forcing children to learn what adults think they may need and testing
them to what degree they have mastered the required content.

So, in summary, Zhao [2015] was calling for governments and educational
authorities to do some special reflexive thinking, and rigorously evaluate
what was occurring currently in this postmodernist world in respect to school
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 91
educational policy. For him, much of these policies were developed with “one
eye in the rearvision mirror”.
In a similar vein, The Royal Institute of International Affairs [2015, n.p.] in
addressing the issues in confronting and overcoming the risks and contradic-
tions of globalisation proposed: “Open markets and technological advances
have the potential to empower and enrich everyone, but they present politi-
cal challenges to governments that require coherent national and multilateral
policy-making”. And one of those challenges according to Zhao [2015] is
school educational policy.
Neoliberalism tends to favour deregulation, a free market economy, priva-
tisation of state-owned industries, lower direct taxation and higher indirect
taxation, and a reduction of the size of the welfare state. Internationally and
domestically, economic rationalists surrounded the Australian Hawke Labour and
those governments, Conservative or Labour which followed. Near-equivalents
included Thatcherism (UK), Rogernomics (NZ), and the Washington Con-
sensus, a term coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson [Battin:
1991, cited in Whitehall: 1998]. To a large extent, the term merely means
economic liberalism, or neoliberalism, a label describing advocates of so-called
market-oriented “reform”. This was a position closer to what sometimes
has become known as the “Third Way”, a term used to represent a position
attempting to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a vary-
ing synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Arguably,
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister best represented this view [Battin: 1991,
cited in Whitehall: 1998].
Beginning in the 1980s, and in the face of globalisation and neoliberalist
policies, the systematic deregulation of media systems worldwide is diminish-
ing the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in the policymaking pro-
cess governing the media. Moreover, “media deregulation limits government
control over media companies. It has caused dramatic political and economic
changes in the US media industry since the 1980s, while also inspiring intense
ideological debate” [Archer: 2017, n.p.]. Let us, however, be sure what we
mean by “media deregulation”.
According to Archer [2017, n.p.]:

Media deregulation refers to the process of removing or loosening govern-

ment restrictions on the ownership of media outlets. For example, [in the
US] prior to the 1980s, a company could own a maximum of 14 radio
stations. In an act of media deregulation, the government lifted this restric-
tion, and some companies now own thousands of radio stations.

Of course, the process of media deregulation occurred in the US, the UK and
Australia all during the early 1980s, with advocates arguing it “restores the
natural market forces of the media industry, making media companies more
efficient and profitable” [Archer: 2017, n.p.]. While opponents of media dereg-
ulation argued “it lessens minority access to the media and hurts journalistic
92 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
integrity, because those aspects of the media are not profit-driven” [Archer:
2017, n.p.]. Who are the eminent beneficiaries of media deregulation? Look
no further than Fox News, News Corporation and the Murdoch dynasty.
The fact that Hawke Labour adopted this brand of economics and politics
can be attributed to its looming zeitgeist during the 1980s, perhaps inherited
from Fraserism, and reflecting the risk society. After all, the previous Prime
Minister, Malcolm Fraser, had become synonymous with the term “there’s no
such thing as a free lunch”. The now dominant negative use came into wide-
spread use during the 1990 recession, and was popularised by Pusey’s [1991]
highly acclaimed Economic rationalism in Canberra.
Ranked by the Australian Sociological Association as one of the ten most
influential books in 40 years of Australian Sociology, Pusey’s [1991] Economic
rationalism in Canberra provides a powerful beginning point to examine the
influence of economic rationalism on school educational policy. Arguably, this
study more than any other stimulated public discourse in Australia in respect
to governments becoming involved in policies based on economic realism, and
the effect this might have on individuals and social groups.
The process of deregulating the Australian economy began in 1983. Austra-
lia was copying the blueprint laid down by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and
Ronald Reagan in the US. In Australia the process began under the Hawke-
Keating Government, starting with deregulation of the financial system.
Subsequent Coalition governments have continued the process. Economic
rationalism has a number of elements [Ryan & Grieshaber: 2005].
In seeking to define the term economic rationalism, Whitehall [1998: n.p.]
showed the term was an Australian term associated with “microeconomic pol-
icy, applicable to the economic policy of many governments around the world,
in particular during the 1980s and 1990s”. Interestingly, in his book Pusey
[1991] does not provide a succinct definition of the term economic rational-
ism. Following research, however, by Burchell [1991], Whitehall [1998, 1]
contended Pusey argued “economic rationalism is the dogma which says that
markets and money can always do everything better than governments, bureau-
cracies and the law. There’s no point in political debate because all this just
generates more insoluble conflicts”. Indeed, “forget about history and forget
about national identity, culture and ‘society’ . . . Don’t even think about public
policy, national goals or nation-building. It’s all futile. Just get out of the way
and let prices and market forces deliver their own economically rational solu-
tion” [Whitehall 1998, 1]. This is a huge step away from the thinking underly-
ing school educational policy of the compensatory, social justice years of the
1970s in the US, UK and Australia.

The media and the language of “risk society”

While this book will have more to say in Chapter 8 about the language of
“reform” in respect to risk society theory curriculum change, here we
should reflect on research resulting from the media and risk society language.
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 93
Addressing her research to issues associated with the media, risk society theory
and the environment, Phillips [2000, 115] stated: “According to Beck’s theory
of risk society (e.g., Beck: 1992), industrial modernization has created a range
of risks that are unlimited in time and space and which have sources and conse-
quences for which no one can be held to account”. Of course, these introduc-
tory generalities apply to school educational policy as well.
According to risk society theory as expressed by Beck [1992], most risk are
unknowable, and since we have no means of identifying the objects of risk and
safety, “nothing can be trusted and every aspect of life becomes a potential
source of danger and hence a potential source of anxiety” [Phillips: 2000, 115].
Thus, people look to the expert, particularly if they are a part of the scientific
community, and here the media plays a vital role in mediating this knowl-
edge. In the minds of the general public, however, according to Phillips [2000,
115] general faith in the views of “experts” have plummeted in many Western
societies: “. . . people’s faith in science has diminished and scientific rational-
ity is increasingly being challenged by ‘social rationality’ which is based on
social evaluation”. Because risks are open to social definition and construction,
together with the sciences, the mass media play key roles in mediating these
risks. Consequently, the language used by the media deserves close scrutiny.
Take for example, much of the language used by the media in relation to the
ACARA’s Safe Schools sexuality program implemented in many Australian
schools. Schools play a vital role in “how students, parents and administrators
regard queer topics in the classroom varies widely depending on the climate of
the school community” [Jackson: 2012, 81].
In the midst of the Safe Schools national moral panic, the News Corporation-
controlled Sydney-based Daily Telegraph ran a story on Safe Schools in second-
ary girls’ school located in the middle-class Sydney north-western suburbs. The
story was headlined: “The story of Cheltenham Girls High School is a textbook
example of the subterfuge involved in the controversial Safe Schools Coalition
and how far education authorities and governments will go to preserve and con-
ceal a program that subverts parents’ rights and values” [Devine: 2016, n.p.]. With
the purposeful use of words and phrases such as “subterfuge”, “controversial
Safe Schools Coalition”, “preserve and conceal” and “subverts parents’ rights and
values”, the article generated epistemic doubt regarding the program. We know
the study of epistemic doubt forms an important component of psychological
research and study, and particularly with young people epistemic doubt is critical
in the their overall development of identity and personality [Boyes & Chandler:
1992]. Consequently, we may conclude from this example that one risk society
prompted program, through carefully worded media reports generates additional
anxieties and risk society concerns. What does Beck and others say about this?
The answer lies in their notions of “the educated person” incorporating “reflex-
ive knowledge of the conditions and prospects of modernity, and in this way
becomes an agent of reflexive modernization” [Beck: 1992/2007, 93–94].
Apart from generating general increased anxieties concerning risk in
national school educational programs, such issues as illustrated by the Devine
94 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
[2016] article cited above flags other concerns for social risk and media
researchers. “Analysis of media and audience discourse”, wrote Phillips
[2000, 134] “indicates the dominance of the principle of epistemic doubt,
an important component of the anti-discourse of low environmental risk”.
Clearly, while more extensive qualitative research is needed to confirm more
definite conclusions in respect to the role of the media in risk society gen-
erated programs in school education, initial research seems to confirm a
similar phenomenon in school education. How should school authorities
respond? Perhaps, a lesson can be learnt from Phillip’s [2000, 134] research:
“Democratic politics needs to contain three main features: it requires pub-
lic debate between a range of different discourses, representing competing
understandings of the social world”. Additionally, “it involves giving people
the resources to take a critical, evaluative stance in relation to the compet-
ing claims about existing social arrangements and suggestions for courses of
action”. Finally, “it demands a public sphere in which the views of differ-
ent social actors, including both experts and non-experts, are expressed and
taken into account in decision-making processes”.

Social media and risk society theory

Beck postulated central features of the risk society thesis in that essentially
risk is manufactured as a predominant product of modern societies, involving
human agency in its production, distribution and management [Beck: 1992].
For the risk society thesis, fundamentally, the process of defining risk, essen-
tially political in nature, is “a power game” of individuals and organisations.
Here, those individual and politically focussed organisations, such as global
organisations who have more capacity to contest in the public sphere have
greater opportunity to define risk [Beck: 2006]. Not surprisingly, this is why
political organisations such as the Global Greens were formed in Canberra in
2001, and why at the same time, “with little fanfare and profound effect, ‘fam-
ily values’ have gone global, and the influence of the Christian Right is increas-
ingly felt internationally” [Buss & Herman: 2003, xix].
Demonstrating the veracity of these points, is Cottle’s [1998] research into
the US/China social media imbroglio concerning the US Beijing embassy in
monitoring and releasing through its Twitter account information perceived
to be offensive. These disputations attracted great domestic and international
media attention and fuelled online discussion in and beyond the Chinese Inter-
net sphere, including the Twittersphere. Cottle’s [1998, 5] research captured
“the emotional and cognitive aspects of tweets and media coverage, to better
understand the actors’ competition in defining and interpreting risk in the pub-
lic sphere”, establishing the central role of politics in defining risk.
All of that is at a global level: what role does social media play in school
education relative to the risk society thesis? A massive role, confirmed Cottle
[1998, 11]. The “position of ontological (in)security, seemingly confirmed by a
succession of media revelations, however, can be contrasted to another take on
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 95
media portrayal of risks, one that is now informed by epistemological uncer-
tainty, given the ‘invisible’ nature of many risks and the contested status of sur-
rounding scientific and other knowledge about them and their consequences”.
For Beck [1992, 196], this occurs “from the global television network to the
school newspaper”.
Here Beck was not attempting to trivialise the role of school newspapers. At
a micro-level, school newspapers, both those published by students and those
published by the school executive – and more recently, often in conjunction
with social media – play a vital role in risk awareness and risk management
[Publishing a school newspaper: 2003, 7]. In accordance with policy statements
by school educational authorities, through students’ newspapers and/or school
newspaper, schools perform a vital and immediate role in enhancing awareness
concerning such risk issues as allergy foods (e.g., peanuts), solar safety (e.g., sun
hats), road safety and environments. Often either students as a learning experi-
ence, or school social media sites such as Facebook, or with their own URL
site, facilitate these messages. Of course, they will have much greater traction if
they reflect broader social risk concerns, as was, for example, the case with the
action the Mt Nelson Primary School students in Tasmania were undertaking
in respect to the endangered Swift Parrot in the school’s newspaper and Face-
book page [Gramenz: 2016; Mt Nelson, Tasmania: n.d.].
Hard-copy school newspapers, however, have “hit a brick wall” with the
onset of the Internet and social media. Hu [2013, n.p.] reported on US
instances: “It, like newspapers everywhere, has struggled to adapt as print costs
soared, and Facebook and Twitter became the media of choice among younger
generations”. Indeed, “fewer than one in eight of the city’s public high schools
reported having a newspaper or print journalism class in an informal survey this
month by city education officials, who do not officially track the information”.
Reduced – or enhanced – to publishing online, “these newspapers have been
reduced to publishing a few times a year because of shrinking staff numbers,
budget cuts, and a new focus on core academic subjects. Some no longer come
out in print at all, existing only as online papers or as scaled-down news blogs”.
Social media, however, has continued to be an increasingly powerful and far-
reaching platform for school communities, informing, shaping opinion, and
playing vital roles in risk aversion, such as the students’ wearing of sun hats.

The media, risk society thinking and schools engulfed

by moral panics
Almost by definition, adolescents are problematic and prone to heightening
adult anxiety, and these vagaries exist in abundance in risk society. Not surpris-
ingly then, that many researchers on moral panic theory devote considerable
space in their publication to the vagaries of childhood and youth [Heir: 2011;
Cree Clapton & Smith: 2015]. One such study endorsing these conclusions is
Bessant and Hil [1997: 3–4], especially linking moral panic and youth with the
media, showing, inter alia, the historical role of the Australian media in moral
96 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
panics associated with youth. Historically, often this came from such sources as
the middle-class monthly journal, Australian Women’s Weekly [Rodwell: 2017b].
The proximity of young people to perceived – often, merely perceived – risks
abounds daily in the media, often in the form of moral panics, and often in
relation to sexuality and the use of social media. Take, for example a South
Australian example:

A school’s humble fundraiser to educate girls in Africa has raised more than
200 times its original goal of $900 after a tweet by Senator Cory Bernardi
that condemned the event prompted a flood of support.
The principal of South Australia’s Craigburn Primary School said the
students organised the Do It In A Dress fundraising drive after learning
about girls in Africa who did not have access to education.
[Stitt: 2017, n.p.]

The school was participating in “The Do It In A Dress campaign, which had

been run by Australian charity OneGirl for six years” [Stitt: 2017, n.p.]. And
Australian Conservative Senator Bernardi tweeted his frustration about the idea
on Wednesday by writing, “This gender morphing is really getting absurd”
[Stitt: 2017, n.p.]. According to Stitt [2017, n.p.], “That tweet prompted a
backlash and a flood of donations and in less than 48 hours, the school had hit
$200,000”.
Critically, the OneGirl incident described above occurred during the
national plebiscite for same-sex marriage, where the national discourse only
weeks before centred on an advertisement by the Coalition for Marriage,
which featured three women concerned about what their children will be
taught in schools:

“The school told my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it”,
one says.
“Kids in Year 7 are being asked to role play being in a same-sex relation-
ship”, another says.
The Coalition for Marriage, the key organisation behind the “no” cam-
paign, said in a statement, the “plebiscite is a referendum on consequences”.
Removing gender from our marriage laws means removing gender from
our classroom.
“This ad will play an important role in helping Australians understand
that saying “yes” to gay marriage would mean saying “yes” to radical gay
sex education in schools”.
[Connellan: 2017, n.p.]

These instances are simply daily occurrences in the three countries under consid-
eration in this book of the coming together of perceived risk, risk society imper-
atives, young people, school education, moral panic, politicians acting as moral
entrepreneurs and moral provocateurs, social media and the mainstream media.
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 97
School education, globalisation, young people, and
the media
School education plays a vital role in overcoming the risks and contradictions
of globalisation, and this is particularly so in developing economies [Overcom-
ing the risk . . .: 2015]. Not surprisingly, increasingly international scholars of
school education are turning their research efforts towards school education,
globalisation, young people, and the media. “Globalization is based on a net-
work of interconnections, interactions and interdependencies between remote
actors who make it possible and within which causative actions, information,
knowledge and influences are propagated almost instantaneously” [Cornalia &
Tirocchib: 2012, 2062]. Dale [2005] maintained the relationship between edu-
cation and globalisation can be brought into sharper focus by scrutinising cer-
tain of its components rather than the phenomenon as a whole. That study
urges ICT be a focus exemplar to illustrate the point, and this book will attend
to that in the following section to this chapter.
My [Rodwell: 2017b] study of globalisation, moral panics and school edu-
cation illustrates how through globalisation and the media, moral panics can
become “instruments” which shape educational policy in a global sense, and
almost concurrently, and that has been evident now for a number of decades:
witness, how national anxieties such as those associated with, say, whole of
language pedagogies, open-plan education moral panics spread globally dur-
ing the late 1980s and early 1990s, or moral panics associated with outcome
based education spread globally during the early decade of the 20th century. In
respect to school education, globalism, the media (and increasingly, the social
media) and risk society thinking are international fellow travellers. Almost at
every turn, young people are connected with all of this.

Globalisation and ICT changes the face of traditional school

education
As the relentless pressures of risk society through globalisation and rapidly evolving
ICT and pressures unfolded on school education, schools and colleges responded
in various ways. Some administrators saw these developments as signalling an end
to print media in school libraries, and the possibility of the cost-saving measure
of replacing teacher-librarians with ICT technicians. For them, library books
would resemble fossil-like dodos in the experiences of young people in school
education. While the response of some others was more measured, confronting
these risk society prompted imperatives front on. Increasingly, school libraries are
responding as ICT impacts their school education communities.
A casual walk through one of these facilities reveals how:

• fresh and engaging new teaching/learning materials have been enriched

with new capabilities (e.g., links to social media, animation, interactivity,
multimedia content);
98 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
• there has been a marked change in the design and quantity of textbooks
and study content, and accessibility to them has improved as they are
increasingly linked to social and online media;
• by stimulating the development of cooperative learning strategies, at the
same time has meant an almost instantaneous sharing of information
and content, as well as the possibility of more extensive interactions at a
distance;
• increasingly, planned teaching/learning strategies have become personal-
ized, with study plans becoming more relevant to individual needs, espe-
cially for students with special needs. This has meant new professional
relationships between classroom teachers and the paraprofessionals and
professionals in the new school libraries.
[Cornalia & Tirocchib: 2012, 2082].

In fact, the rise of advanced pedagogies such as e-lessons, the use of Web-based
educational material, remote mentoring and the creation of distance study
groups is leading to new relationships between class-units and libraries. Educa-
tional provisions are becoming polycentric, as with the increasing use of teach-
ing programs delivered by agencies and institutions with locations around the
world, or by global educational networks (consisting of global virtual universi-
ties, virtual museums, virtual schools and multinational educational consor-
tiums) all competing with each other: witness the huge possibilities offered for
students and teachers through access to Google Arts and Culture [Cornalia &
Tirocchib: 2012, 2082].
Barack [2013, n.p.] reported how high school principal, Dr Sue Skinner,
“may have removed nearly all of the physical books from Minnesota’s Benilde-
St Margaret’s school library in 2011, but the Moore Library remains a vital edu-
cational space where students still research, investigate and – above all – learn”,
Skinner was reported as stating. Today, students from both the junior and high
school grades convened there with their laptops, sought “assistance from math
and literacy coaches, or read quietly (sometimes even from books)”.
“‘We used to think of a library as a building with stacks of books’, said Skin-
ner”. However, Barack reported how Skinner stated “now we should think
of it as a space where people come together to share ideas, be creative, access
information, and even read. Instead of thinking of it so literally, we should
think of it as a more active space and evolving” [Barack: 2013, n.p.].
Yet, these risk society ICT-prompted impacts on school education come
with anxieties, even moral panics. In Australia, these moves from the print-
based school libraries to digital libraries were prompting a considerable moral
panic. For example, in Adelaide, School Libraries Association of SA president,
Lesley Brideson, was reported as stating principals were “increasingly replac-
ing librarians, who are qualified teachers with extra library qualifications, with
cheaper support workers who lacked expertise in curating resources” [Wil-
liams & Boisvert: 2014, n.p.]. Typically, this impact of risk society imperatives
brought with it a moral panic in the wider community associated with the
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 99
decline of school libraries and school librarians. The media played an important
role in generating anxieties.
It appears that the tide of history has been on the side of the school educa-
tional administrators who look for cost-savings under the banner of ICT “prog-
ress” in pulling their print media from the shelves, but some have been able to
combine “the best of both worlds”. For example, Swain [2015] reported: “You
might think technology would spell the end of books and libraries. But many
schools have embraced the digital revolution and built innovative spaces that
foster a love of literature” [Swain: 2015, n.p.].
Many school administrators have found creative answers, developing spaces
allowing students to make discoveries, put technology to imaginative use, learn,
perform and relax – as well as to read. In the process, libraries have often come
to be the school’s focal point. This was the idea behind a new library at Dixons
Allerton Academy in Bradford, UK, built centrally over the entrance and link-
ing the primary and secondary schools on the campus. The library is not just
a new physical space, replacing a traditional book-lined room that had buckets
on the floor because of leaky ceilings; “it also plays an important part generally
in delivering the curriculum”. It does this through e-learning and information
literacy specialist staff who loan out equipment, coupled with support teach-
ers and students in using it wherever it is needed – a blend of traditional print
media and e-learning [Swain: 2015, n.p.].

Anxious school communities

Internationally, researchers have looked to anxiety levels in school educa-
tional students with a view to assessing how anxiety levels, and their vari-
ous causes, affect school performance. For example a study of students from
middle-income families in Central Italy began with the assumption that “anxi-
ety symptoms” are relatively common among children and adolescents and can
interfere with functioning. This study focussed on the relationship between
anxiety and school performance were examined among elementary, middle
and high school students. It concluded: “The prevalence of abnormally high
self-reported levels of anxiety increased in frequency with age and was nega-
tively associated with school performance” [Mazzone, et al: 2007, n.p.].
Other more broad-ranging studies examined aspects of children’s social and
contextual experience in schools, and related student levels of anxiety. Here,
“children in elementary schools completed a measure designed to assess quali-
ties of their relationships with teachers as well as their perceptions of school
environments” [Murray & Greenberg: 2000, 423]. Students were grouped
into categories based on these perceptions and comparisons made between
groups on measures of social and emotional adjustment. Here it was found
“student classifications resembled classifications reported by other researchers
for student-teacher relationships” [Murray & Greenberg: 2000, 423]. More-
over, “students classified as having poor relationships with teachers and poor
bonds with school had poorer scores on self- and teacher-ratings of social and
100 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
emotional adjustment than children classified as having positive relationships
and bonds” [Murray & Greenberg: 2000, 423].
Yet, research on anxious school communities resulting from a mix of wider
societal anxieties such as Islamophobia are difficult to locate in the literature
[Rodwell & Maadad: 2018]. But clearly, from anecdotal evidence this mix of
causes has a profound effect on anxiety levels in wider school communities.

Risk society and dog-whistling school education policy

Not all connections of the media with risk society thinking and school educa-
tional policy, however, have been so kind to students. Often connected with a
moral panic, dog-whistle politics and journalism have developed concurrently
with risk society thinking. Clearly responding to perceived socio-political chal-
lenges, and possibly anxiety-filled school communities, dog-whistle politics
and journalism seek a political message, often directed at school education
policy. Sometimes, this school educational-based anxiety has to do with some-
thing as simple as budget cuts to sports and cultural programs, forming the
conditions for media to feed off this anxiety [Balingfit: 2015]. But first, exactly
what is dog-whistle journalism and politics?
According to Merriam-Webster [n.d., n.p.] the term,

“dog-whistle” appears to have taken on a political sense in the mid-1990s;

the Oxford English Dictionary currently has a citation from a Canadian news-
paper, The Ottawa Citizen, in October of 1995, as their earliest recorded
figurative use: “It’s an all-purpose dog-whistle that those fed up with femi-
nists, minorities, the undeserving poor hear loud and clear”.

The notion of the political and journalistic use of the term “dog-whistle” has
undergone considerable changes in recent decades. For example, Bossio [2008]
wrote of how “the method of using a political ‘dog-whistle’ has been defined
by Australian journalist Mike Steketee as: One ‘where a subliminal message,
not literally apparent in the words used, is heard by sections of the commu-
nity’” [Safire: 2005, as cited in Bossio: 2008, n.p.]. Bossio [2008] wrote on
dog-whistle messages in Australian politics at the end of the John Howard-led
Coalition years of federal politics (1996–2007). But much has happened to the
term “dog-whistle” politics and journalism since then.
The notion of dog-whistle journalism and politics is forever evolving. For
example, Saul [2017] introduced the concept of the “figleaf ”, differing from
the more familiar dog-whistle in that the dog-whistle targets specific listen-
ers with coded messages bypassing the broader population, while “the figleaf
adds a moderating element of decency to cover the worst of what’s on display,
but nevertheless changes the boundaries of acceptability” [Saul: 2017, cited
in Merriam-Webster, n.d., n.p.]. When journalists and politicians dog-whistle
towards school educational policy the figleaf increasingly is brought into play.
As Merriam-Webster (n.d.: n.p.) noted, remarkably,
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 101
Given that the term dog-whistle has been around for over 200 years, it
seems odd that it only developed a figurative sense recently. After all, it’s
the perfect word to use to describe something that some people can hear,
but others cannot. Yet it is only within the past 20 years or so that it has
seen this figurative sense take hold. And it is primarily used to describe
political speech.

How do we explain the comparative recent historical use of the term “dog-
whistle”, and particularly the use of the dog-whistle in political and journalistic
discourse? Its emergence into common usage coincided with the development
and growth of the 24-hour news cycle and that of social media.
Dog-whistle politics and journalism underwent massive changes with the
advent of social, or participatory media, such as Facebook and Twitter during
the early 21st century. This was so much so that at least one national academic
conference was given over to interrogating these influences, especially in rela-
tion to moral panics [Participatory Media: 2015]. In fact, the social media has
generated its own moral panic, often linked to dog-whistle journalism and pol-
itics. Titley [2013, n.p.] wrote how Irish society witnessed its very own moral
panic concerning social media: “While the primal evil being attributed to the
‘tweet machine’ is faintly embarrassing, all such moral panics are politically
instructive, and this is no exception”. Titley (2013, n.p.) stated: “more recent
statements indicate that the governing class is animated by a patrician disap-
proval that is far more general, and historically established – a fear of too much
democracy”. In this light, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s
use of Twitter has received international attention (see, e.g., Kato: 2016).
It is the mainstream media, however, which carries its weight in dog-
whistling journalistic and political messages. Indeed, for Fear [2007, 21]:
“modern democratic politics would be very different without the media”. And
the relationship is often strongly symbiotic, defining the way in which “politi-
cal messages are crafted and disseminated”, and often the product of the hege-
mony of large media organisations. Indeed,

the way that large media organisations operate would seem to encourage,
or at least acquiesce in, dog-whistle politics. The scramble of the daily
news cycle, the pace with which journalists must decide whether and how
to run a story, creates conditions under which apparently benign state-
ments can easily slip past critical attention.
[Fear: 2007, 21]

Increasingly under pressure from the frenzy of the daily news cycle in the
media marketplace, “journalists repeat the phraseology used by politicians in
their public statements without questioning the assumptions behind those
terms” [Fear: 2007, 21]. Often, “if a phrase has been carefully crafted with the
aim of dog-whistling to a select audience, simply replicating it in a news report
amplifies the message’s effect” [Fear: 2007, 21]. And this also is the case when
102 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
TV and radio repeat dog-whistle messages from the print media. But the issue
Fear [2007] does not address is that of instances of dog-whistling educational
policy at the initiative of large media organisations (often with their own politi-
cal agenda) referred to earlier in this paragraph.
Further endorsing the view of how dog-whistle politics and journalism are
continuing to undergo change is research by Manning [2004], who shows
the spread of dog-whistle journalism and politics across the different media in
respect to reporting Arabic and Muslim people. Typically, some groups were
labelled “freedom fighters”, other “terrorists”. And this can change dramati-
cally: for example, when the US sided with the Taliban in their national strug-
gle with the Soviets, they were commonly labelled “freedom fighters”; while
post-11 September 2001 and the Al Qaeda airborne attacks in the US, the Tali-
ban were now “terrorists”, harbouring the notorious Osama Bin Laden, and
deserving of invasion. “The choice of particular adjectives and nouns can turn
the reader’s sympathies on way or another” [Manning: 2004, 17]. Particularly,
in reporting on Arabic and Muslim people:

If there is no real “reason” for the violence – it is “mindless”, “typical” of

Arab/Muslim people – then its senselessness is shocking, horrifying and
disgusting. If there is a reason or reasons, the media field involving Arabs
and Muslims become more complex. History, context and culture come
into play as necessary components of understanding.
Language is therefore the first indicator of meaning.
[Manning: 2004, 17]

Research by Poynting et al. [2004] supports Manning’s [2004] findings, in rela-

tion to dog-whistle journalism and politics in respect to criminalising the Mus-
lim Other in the suburbs of the cities in countries under consideration in this
book.
More recently, dog-whistle politics and journalism has received international
attention with Donald Trump’s contesting the American presidency, and his
subsequent success with the election. Here, Ian Haney Lopez, author of Dog-
whistle politics [2015] has made a prominent contribution, one being to the
North Carolina Public Radio WUNC91.5 session to which Shelton and Stas-
sio [2017] also contributed. Probably attesting to a general interest in dog-
whistle journalism and politics, Lopez’s [2015] research achieved considerable
public interest. Here, it was explained, for example, how President Richard
Nixon’s use of the coded phrase “law and order” was directed to white voters
in the South, resulting in a linkage here during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s
between black activism and criminality. This was “very potent political lan-
guage, and Nixon seizes on it” [Shelton & Stassio: 2017, n.p.].
Fast forward to President Donald Trump and his development of the use of
coded phrases and dog-whistle politics when through the mainstream media
and social media he sought to project an image that it is not racial fear that
is motivating him. But “at the same time, his critics are saying that calling
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 103
Mexicans ‘rapists and drugs dealers’ is race baiting” [Shelton & Stassio: 2017,
n.p.]. Apparently, “he recognized having cultural elites criticize him as a rac-
ist actually helped him with his base, because one thing a lot of whites fear is
that they are the new racial victims and that one form of racial victimization
of whites is false accusations of racism” [Shelton & Stassio: 2017, n.p.]. Con-
sequently, when people accuse Trump of being a racist, many of his partisans
respond with the assertion:

That just shows that people look down on us because we know we are not
racist, and when you say one of us is that just proves he is one of us and that
we are the ones who are actually embattled and victimized in this country.
[Shelton & Stassio: 2017, n.p.]

Similarly, when Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, labelled a

clique of Trump loyalists as being “deplorables”, which they in turn used the
term was a badge of courage and a silent and coded weapon in media messages
against the Clinton Democrats.
Lopez also contributed to another American radio broadcast on the topic
of dog-whistling politics, this time on the subject of “the GOP’s [Grand Old
Party, Republican Party] long-time political weapon of choice”. Here, he
asserted how “the notion of ‘Dog-Whistle Politics’ is that a lot of our political
speech is being conducted in code” [Smith Richardson & Forte: 2016, n.p.].
Indeed, “the metaphor is one in which, in political speech, on one level, some
of these coded phrases are silent; and on the other, they’re producing strong
racial reactions” [Smith Richardson & Forte: 2016, n.p.]. Consequently, when
the media uses terms like “‘illegal alien’ or ‘inner city’ or ‘welfare queen’. You
can’t find race on the surface, but just below the surface, producing strong
reactions” [Smith Richardson & Forte: 2016, n.p.]. This poses the question of
why News Corporation through its flagship, The Weekend Australian on 17–18
June 2017 ran a front-page story by Schliebs and Deutrom [2017] on Austra-
lia’s Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government’s Building the Education Revolution
(BER). For what purpose: to inform the Australian public on recent develop-
ments with the BER, or to dog-whistle some other message?
It is not difficult to imagine how this form of dog-whistle politics has
impacted on school educational policy: for example, there has been a mass of
quality historical research on Australia’s national anxieties of “the other on our
shore”, the non-Anglo Saxon whites. Walker’s research [1999; 2002; 2003;
2005] is prominent examples of quality research, connecting national anxiet-
ies of the interwar years directly with the anxieties surrounding the December
2005 Cronulla race riots in Sydney’s southern beaches, which were the precur-
sor of the nation’s first national history curriculum.
Especially around Islamophobia, dog-whistle politics was a “red-hot” media
topic leading up to the 2001 federal election campaign in which the Howard
government used the “Tampa crisis” and 11 September to appeal successfully to
popular xenophobia and insecurities [Poynting & Noble: 2003]. This was the
104 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
political and media dog-whistling background activity to the December 2005
Cronulla race riots.
The Australian flag and its values featured strongly in the media reports of
the Cronulla riots. For example, Senator Bob Brown, leader of the left-wing
oriented Greens in the federal parliament, was reported in online media as
declaring Prime Minister Howard had failed “Australia as racist division con-
tinues” and the “racist thuggery continues in Sydney” [PM fails Australia as
racist division continues: 2005, n.p.]. This media report had Howard declar-
ing: “I would never condemn people for being proud of the Australian flag”,
and Brown had warned Australians this was “dog-whistle politics. It clearly
condones racists abusing the Australian flag” [PM fails Australia as racist divi-
sion continues: 2005, n.p.]. Indeed “for individuals to wrap themselves in
our flag and sing our anthem in the cause of racism deserves condemnation.
It fractures the whole idea of a fair go” [PM fails Australia as racist division
continues: 2005, n.p.]. If educational policy outcomes can be used as an index
to the policy outcomes of this dog-whistling, there were definite successes
[Rodwell: 2017a].
Much school education policy is the result of a nation’s broader politics,
often dog-whistled through the media. While much research has focussed,
internationally, on anxiety in students, there is, however, a dearth of research
on general school educational-community anxiety.

Risk society and violent video games

The release of the video game Grand Theft Auto IV in 2008 prompted consider-
able international discourse on how video games prompted violent behaviour
in young users. Inter alia, this discourse induced the American Psychological
Association (APA) to research this perceived connection, resulting in a call for
more parental control over violent scenes in video games. Indeed, von Radow-
itz [2015] from the UK-based Independent announced to readers that psycholo-
gists confirmed that playing violent video games is linked to aggressive and
callous behaviour. This review came after almost a decade of studies found that
exposure to violent video games was a “risk factor” for increased aggression
from young people, with obvious implications for schools and colleges and the
community-at-large. Granted, the same team of experts said there was insuf-
ficient evidence to conclude that the influence of games such as Call Of Duty
and Grand Theft Auto led to criminal acts [von Radowitz: 2015].
At the same time in Australia, Doherty [2015] reported high-profile 2015
Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, speaking at the Royal Commission into
Family Violence in Melbourne, saying that “schools had an important role in
educating students about the harms of porn, and violence prevalent in video
games” [n.p.]. Indeed, for Batty, the Melbourne mother whose husband had
murdered their son in a public space after cricket practice, “the gaming culture
was a concern in warping boys’ minds on violence and sex, particularly games
like Grand Theft Auto being played at a very young age”. Indeed, “clearly that
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 105
is a culture that is really hard to protect your children from” [Doherty: 2015,
n.p.]. Batty contended: “research by Our Watch [a national non-profit organ-
isation devoted to the surveillance of young people and the media] has shown
young people’s attitudes to relationships have ‘regressed’, and believes violent
video games have played a part in that” [Doherty: 2015, n.p.]. According to
their website, “Our Watch has been established to drive nation-wide change in
the culture, behaviours and attitudes that lead to violence against women and
children” (Our Watch: n.d., n.p.).
For a decade or so, video games have been slowly gaining in popularity as
a pedagogical tool in the school curriculum, for example, in teaching higher-
order thinking and historical literacy [Rodwell: 2013]. This is done in Australia,
for example, with the support of ACARA which states “the Australian Curricu-
lum recognises the use of digital technology (such as video games and mobile
media) as beneficial in engaging students and keeping abreast of advancing tech-
nology and development” [Do video games have a place . . . 2014., n.p.].
The rising popularity of video games as a pedagogical strategy in the Austra-
lian Curriculum has occurred during a time of increased moral panic concern-
ing the use of video games, generally, by young people. Many observers may
have considered Batty’s comments on the nexus of the viewing of video games
and domestic violence to be a nail in its coffin. Will the moral panic surround-
ing the use of video games drown out, for example, their use in a History cur-
riculum with such marginalised games as Assassin’s Creed?
Comparatively, few cultural debates have been waged for so long as the issue
of whether media violence contributes meaningfully to societal violence. The
politics of ascribing to this connection compares with wider societal moral
panic associated with utilising research from such sources as Boleik [2012] who
confirmed a connection between viewing of video games and violent behav-
iour, and Palmer [2013] who dismisses any connection. Ferguson [2014, 193]
writes: “Following tragic mass shooting events committed by younger shoot-
ers, many politicians point to cultural influences as a potential contributing
factor”. Ferguson [2014, 193] also showed “similar divisions are seen within
the social science community. For example, some professional advocacy groups
such as the American Psychological Association [APA: 2005] have released
policy statements unequivocally linking media violence to societal aggression”.
This, however, is contested. “Recently . . . a group of approximately 230
media scholars, criminologists, and psychologists wrote an open letter to the
APA asking them to retire their policy statements and refrain from making such
causal attributions” [Consortium of Scholars: 2013, cited in Ferguson: 2014,
193]. In its review of the policy, however, the APA, claimed: “Playing violent
video games is linked to increases in aggression and decreases in sensitivity to
aggression . . . the review indicat[ing] that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ about
whether playing violent video games can also lead to criminal violence or
delinquency” [Sarkar: 2015, n.p.].
The AMA’s findings vis-à-vis the risk factors of video games as a pedagogical
device, and concerning the politics of the relative connection of video games
106 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
with community violence, received similar findings with its Australian equiva-
lent. In a lengthy study linking children’s viewing of video games to violence,
the Australian Psychological Society (APS) stated: the “media are clearly not
the only, nor the most important, contributors to human social behaviour, but
are unquestionably an important source of social influence” [APS: 2013, 16].
The APS [2013, 16] study estimated: “By far the greatest amount of psycho-
logical research on the media has concerned the impact of televised violence
and violence contained within video games on children”.
Indeed, “although the relationship between exposure and effects is neither
simple nor direct, more than 40 years of research has indicated that television,
video games, and Internet content can and do influence our feelings, attitudes and
behaviours” [APS: 2013, 16]. Reviewing later research on violent video games,
the APS [2013] study showed children’s exposure to video game violence leads
to increased aggression, an effect that has been demonstrated both as a short-term
consequence and longer-term effect on different roles in society [APS: 2013, 4–5].
The APS [2013, 16] study concluded: “In both the long- and the short-term, our
experience of media images contributes in significant ways to how we think, act,
and feel, and to our broader beliefs about the world and social reality”.
While not approaching the politics of any disagreement, the APS [2013]
conclusions, however, are contested. “When it comes to violent video games
and actual violence, the jury is well and truly in; there is absolutely no correla-
tion between the consumption of violent video games and actual youth vio-
lence, let alone any causation” [Blayney: 2015, n.p.]. A 2014 study published
“definitively put this claim to rest once and for all” [Blayney: 2015, n.p.].
But do video games deserve to be associated with ongoing moral panics? Before
video games, for children there was VHS video. During the 1980s, anxieties asso-
ciated with media and youth were centred on censorship of the burgeoning video
home systems (VHS) industry. By the 1990s, with the massive developments in
computer technology, these concerns had been transferred to the video games
industry and social researchers were responding. But the moral panics concerning
the media and the young long had been a part of society and politics. For example,
Springhall [1998] wrote how for centuries, anxieties concerning negative influ-
ences of the various forms of popular culture on the young were preoccupying
moral entrepreneurs, sometimes out of all proportion to the actual posed threat.
Witness moral panics with such anxieties concerning Victorian “dreadfuls” such
as The wild boys of London, demonstrably, out of all proportion to their minimal
effects on juvenile crime. But all of that was before the advent of risk society
thinking impacting governmental and school educational policy.
The “pervasive, powerful presence of such subliminally provoking messages
of sounds and images could be assumed to produce dramatic impacts on social
behavior”, and consequently issues with risk society thinking at a governmen-
tal level, wrote Castells [2010, 362]. Yet, most available research points to the
opposite conclusion. For example, Neuman [1991, 87, cited in Castells: 2010,
362] concluded: “The accumulated findings from five decades of systematic
social science research reveal that mass media audience, youthful or otherwise,
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 107
is not helpless, and the media are not all-powerful. The evolving theory of
modest and conditional media effects helps to put in perspective the historical
cycle of moral panic over new media”.
Even by the late 1990s, in the US video games were a six billion dollar
industry, causing governments and NFPs (Not for Profit) to agonise over their
presence and use by young people. When controversial games such as Mortal
Kombat, distributed by Sega, in which characters apparently won points at the
highest level by ripping out the spinal columns and severing the limbs of oppo-
nents, moral entrepreneurs responded. The video games industry countered by
claiming its members could police the industry through a body representing 62
software publishers, including Nintendo Entertainment UK and Sega Europe
Ltd. This body would oversee ratings for individual games. Clearly displayed
stickers on the packaging of games advised parents of their suitability for differ-
ent age groups. Characters such as Sonic the Hedgehog and the Mario Broth-
ers were considered universally appropriate, but warriors in the Mortal Kombat
game are now restricted to the over-15s [Springhall: 1998, 153–154]. Risk
society theory assists greatly in explaining the contested position of marginal
video games as a pedagogical tool in the school and college curriculum.
There are general international sporadic outbursts of moral panics concern-
ing the generation born roughly between 1980 and 1994 and characterised as
the “digital natives” or the “Net generation” because of their familiarity with
and reliance on ICT. They are described as living lives immersed in technology,
“surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video
cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age” [Prensky:
2005, 1]. However, for Bennett, Maton, and Kervin [2008], this is an unwar-
ranted claim, deserving of much more in-depth research.
A question arises whether it is possible to isolate particular moral panics
such as those associated with young people’s use of video games, and dis-
cern their relationships with risk society theory, because, as Thompson [1998,
cited in Poynting & Morgan, 2007, 2] observed, the “increasing rapidity in the
succession of moral panics” makes it impossible to distinguish the boundar-
ies between each. Moreover, as Beck [1992] and Giddens [1999] suggested:
“Modern societies have become so engulfed by a sense of risk and uncertainty
that it’s impossible to distinguish particular moral panics from the background
radiation of popular anxiety” [Poynting & Morgan: 2007, 2]. There is an obvi-
ous application of this reasoning to the use of marginal video games in schools
and colleges. With radio shock jocks drumming out a common message, in
addition to the plethora of social media activity, for some people in the US, the
UK and Australia the whole nation was going down the drain.

The media, school education policy and

reflexive modernity
With the advent of risk society thinking impacting on school educational policy
it has become increasingly challenging for educational authorities and national
108 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
governments to formulate and implement policy in the classically formal, tradi-
tional and rational manner. Through the various impacts of the media through
its various forms, school educational policy for these authorities is becoming
increasingly reactive. The key agency here is that of reflexivity, while the role
of school principals have turned increasingly to managers of risk.
Teachers, themselves, voice their support for developing attitudes and
knowledge regarding reflexivity in their understanding of school educational
policy through professional development programs and higher degree study.
One participant commented:

Regular meetings with my supervisor and the completion of a research

diary helped me track and record this process [of reflexivity], enabling
reflection each step of the way and the documenting and justifying of each
decision. . . . My role as researcher rather than practitioner was emphasised
throughout the study both verbally and in writing.
[Gregory: 2017, n.p.]

Burke and Kirton [2006] support the above research findings, stressing the
importance of teachers engaging in critical processes of reflexivity questioning
the assumptions they bring to their work. “Reflexivity involves critical reflection
but takes this process further to include an interrogation of the taken-for-granted
assumptions that teachers bring to their practice” [Burke & Kirton: 2006, 1].
With some stark warnings, this conscious effort towards reflexivity in school
communities is supported by research by Quicke [1997] who contended
the idea of a learning society is consonant with developments in the social
world conceived as part of the ongoing project of reflexive modernity. Here, a
dynamic process of individualisation, which on the one hand results in widen-
ing opportunities for self-creation and the construction of democratic, flex-
ible communities, but on the other is associated with new kinds of structures
and cultural processes which continue to reproduce inequality whilst failing to
counter the tendency to fragmentation. It is arguable that this fragmentation
comes through challenges from the omnipresent neoliberal ideology the par-
ticular mix of neoliberal free market ideas and neo-conservative authoritarian-
ism just cannot deliver the flexibility, diversity and scope for reflexivity required
at the level of the self or the community. Examples of this may be through such
instances as the marketing of fee-paying international students through the
school, and where traditional school educational values are subsumed in the
school as a marketplace.
The rise of neoliberalism and the push towards reflexivity, indeed, has led to
a change in the nature of the public sphere and in respect to school educational
policy management. Consequently, Huang and Ou [2015] contend focusing
only on analyses of state-initiated policy today and the actions of central gov-
ernment, and using Taiwanese examples, it is not sufficient, nor conducive, in
developing a full understanding of the complex process of policy implementa-
tion. Hence, these researchers demonstrated that to analyse the politics and
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 109
process of policy implementation at the level of local government in Taiwan
it is necessary draw evidence through two rounds of qualitative interviews of
the “policy actants”. They found current policy environment has created the
“agile” actors, which locates in the informally and flexibly collaborative space
rather than structured within the formal institutions. Of course, this brings
into focus the role of social media with these “agile” actors, with social media
itself being an “actant” in the school educational policy process. Of course,
many readers will recognise here the role of such events as moral panics, and
dog-whistle politics and journalism, even orchestrated moral panics, such as
those centred on such phenomena, as a response to risk society imperatives, as
Islamophobia and its impact on school educational policy. Thus, Huang and
Ou [2015, 14] concluded: “‘reflexivity’ and ‘position’ in the ‘ambivalent public
space’ are the key factors to interpret the process of policy implementation”.

Analysis and conclusions

Beginning sometime in the early 1980s and soon impacting on school educa-
tional policy, neoliberalism – sometimes labelled economic rationalism – and glo-
balism have been dominant zeitgeist in the US, the UK and Australia. However,
it is not universally acclaimed, not a term that everyone is happy to use. Some
may see it as ideological jargon, political talk, if you will. While for others it
might describe what is happening, but its use by education academics and school
educational policy bureaucrats may be contested by teachers and practitioners
who are prevented from hearing its central message. Be that as it may, certainly it
is deeply imbedded in the culture of school educational authorities. For reasons
associated with risk society imperatives, politicians cling to its use, with the belief
that this free market model enhances school educational policies and practices in
promoting individual self-interest over the common good, and the market as the
arbiter of values. As this has been occurring, the combined forces of globalisation
and ICT have wrought massive changes the face of traditional school education.
Almost as if in a symbiotic relationship, and walking hand-in-glove with
neoliberalism, risk society mentality has been aided by the broader media, and
at the same time promoting its own language or anxiety and risk. Nowhere
is this more evident than in the developing use of dog-whistle politics and
journalism, which over recent decades has had a powerful influence on school
educational policy.
With politics increasingly being conducted through social media, govern-
ments and school authorities respond to risk society thinking in multiple ways,
but usually with the omnipresent language of anxiety, with the impression that
society is “on the brink” of jeopardy. Increasingly, school education is linked
with the politics of the risk society, with risk and young people being almost
synonymously projected and understood by society-at-large.
In a more positive manner, the interaction of the media, school education
policy imperatives bring about a reflexivity in the general praxis of school edu-
cation, much the same as has been illustrated in the 1952 Russell Ward graphic
110 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
discussed in the Introduction to this book, a continual process of reflexivity
responding to modernity, but where the notion of risk increasingly is being
globalised.

References
American Psychological Association (2005). Resolution on violence in videogames and
interactive media. Retrieved 8 June 2016 from [Link]/about/policy/interactive-
[Link].
Arber, R. & Blackmore, J. (2010). The impact of fee-paying International students on Aus-
tralian secondary schools, teachers and students. Research Report, Deakin University.
Retrieved 14 December 2014 from [Link]/research/src/crefi/documents/
[Link] .
Archer, D. (2017). What is media deregulation? Bizfluent (26 September). Retrieved 9 March
2018 from [Link]
Australian Psychological Society (2013). Media Representations and Responsibilities: psychologi-
cal perspectives, Melbourne.
Balingfit, M. (2015). Anxiety, frustration and incredulity follow suggestion of school sports
cuts. Washington Post (5 August). Retrieved 11 October 2017 from [Link].
com/local/education/anxiety-frustration-and-incredulity-follow-suggestion-of-school-
sports-cuts/2015/08/05/78fb20e2–3bac-11e5–8e98–115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?utm_
term=.d0f3c340d320.
Barack, L. (2013). School library thrives after ditching print collection. School Library Journal.
(8 January). Retrieved 19 October 2016 from [Link]/2013/01/k-12/
school-library-thrives-after-ditching-print-collection/.
Battin, T. (1991). What is this thing called economic rationalism? Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 26, pp. 294–307.
Beck, U. (Trans. M. Ritter) (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London/Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Beck, U. (2007). Living in the world risk society: A Hobhouse Memorial Public Lecture
given on Wednesday 15 February 2006 at the London School of Economics. Economy &
Society. 35(3), pp. 329–345.
Bennett, S. J., Maton, K.A. & Kervin, L.K. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: a critical
review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5). pp. 775–786.
Bessant, J. & Hil, R. (1997). Youth crime and media, Hobart: National Clearinghouse for
Youth Studies.
Blayney, D. (2015). The video blame game, DavPlayn (22 November). Retrieved 1 June
2016 from [Link]
Boleik, B. (2012). Senator Jay Rockefeller: Study videogame violence, Politico (19 Decem-
ber). Retrieved 8 June 2016 from [Link]/story/2012/12/sen-jay-rockefeller-
wants-shooter-games-and-violence-studied-085298.
Bossio, D. (2008). The whistle we all heard: a re-conceptualisation of the “dog-whistle’” in
politics and journalism, Online Proceedings of “Sustaining Culture”. Annual Conference of
the Cultural Studies Association of Australia (CSAA) UniSA, Adelaide December 6–8, 2007.
Retrieved 12 March 2018 from [Link]
Boyes M.C. & Chandler M. (1992). Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity
formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescents. 21(3), pp. 277–304.
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 111
Burchell, D. (1991). ‘Reason to worry’, Australian Left Review, pp. 26–30.
Burke, P.J. & Kirton, A. (2006). The insider perspective: teachers-as-researchers. Reflecting
Education. 2(1). July. pp. 1–4.
Buss, D. & Herman, D. (2003). Globalizing family values: the Christian right in international
politics. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the network society (2nd ed.), Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Connellan, M. (2017). “Deliberately misleading”: First “vote no” to same-sex marriage adver-
tisement airs. SBS News (30 August). Retrieved 24 June 2018 from [Link]
news/deliberately-misleading-first-vote-no-to-same-sex-marriage-advertisement-airs.
Consortium of Scholars (2013). Scholar’s open statement to the APA task force on violent
media. Retrieved 8 June 2016 from [Link]/APA%20Task%20
Force%[Link] .
Cornalia, F. & Tirocchib, S. (2012). Globalization, education, information and communi-
cation technologies: what relationships and reciprocal influences? Cyprus International
Conference on Educational Research (2012). North Cyprus, US08–10 February, 2012.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences. 47, pp. 2060–2069.
Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, ‘Risk society’ and the media: a catastrophic view? European
Journal of Communication. 13(1). pp. 5–32.
Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, “risk society” and the media: a catastrophic view? European
Journal of Communication (March) 13(1) pp. 5–32.
Cree, V., Clapton, G. & Smith, M. (Eds) (2015). Revisiting moral panics. Bristol: Policy Press.
Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, Knowledge, Economy and Comparative Education. Com-
parative Education. 41(2). pp. 117–149.
Devine, M. (2016). Girls who are girls but not girls – It’s time to stop the Safe Schools subterfuge.
Daily Telegraph (24 July). Retrieved 29 March 2017 from [Link]/ren
dezview/girls-who-are-girls-but-not-girls–its-time-to-stop-the-safe-schools-subterfuge/
news-story/bf3a5633c20dbfee6a6a57596b153cd8.
Do video games have a place in the Australian Curriculum? (2014) ACARA (24 July).
Retrieved 1 June 2016 from [Link]/news_media/news_archive/news_
archive_2014_07.html.
Doherty, E. (2015). Even the nation’s leaders make sexist comments, Rosie Batty says’.
Herald Sun (11 August). Retrieved 11 December 2015 from [Link]
au/news/victoria/even-the-nations-leaders-make-sexist-comments-rosie-batty-says/
news-story/7873f4655d92f79c1492242022a9b604.
Fear, J. (2007). Under the radar: Dog-whistle politics in Australia, The Australia Institute
(September). Discussion Paper Number. Retrieved 23 June 2017 from [Link]/
sites/defualt/files/DP96_8.pdf .
Ferguson, C.J. (2014). Does media violence predict societal violence? It depends on what
you look at and when, Journal of Communication, 65(1). pp. 1–22.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile.
Gramenz, E. (2016). Critically endangered swift parrot breeding ground in Tasmania ille-
gally logged for firewood. ABC News (30 July). Retrieved 6 October [Link]/
news/2016-07-29/swift-parrot-habitat-illegaly-logged-for-firewood/7672504
Gregory, L. (2017). Reflectivity in educational research: challengers and rewards for the prac-
titioner researcher. British Educational Research Association. Retrieved 2 September 2017
from [Link]/blog/reflexivity-in-educational-research-challenges-and-rewards-
for-the-practitioner-researcher.
112 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
Heir, S.P. (2011). Introduction. In Heir, S. (Ed.). Moral panic and the politics of anxiety. Lon-
don: Routledge, pp. 3–19.
Hu, W. (2013). At school papers, the ink is drying up. New York Times (27 May). Retrieved
6 October 2016 from [Link]/2013/05/28/nyregion/at-school-papers-the-
[Link].
Huang, T. & Ou, Y.S. (2015). Reflexivity, position, and the ambivalent public space: the
politics of educational policy in Taiwan’s local governments. Asia Pacific Journal of Educa-
tion, pp. 14–27 (8 Mar 2016). Retrieved 2 September 2017 from [Link]/
doi/abs/10.1080/02188791.2016.1142422?src=recsys&journalCode=cape20.
Jackson, J. (2012). “How do you spell homosexuality?” Naturally queer moments in K-12
classrooms. In J. Solar, C.S. Walsh, A. Craft, J. Rix & K. Simmons. Transforming practices:
Critical issues in equity, diversity and education. Milton Keynes, UK: Trenthan Books, pp.
81–90.
Kato, D. (2016). Trump’s dog-whistle politics. Open Democracy: free thinking for the world.
(27 September). Retrieved 13 July 2017 from [Link]/daniel-kato/
trump-s-dog-whistle-politics-20.
Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education, London/New York: Routledge.
Lopez, I.H. (2015). Dog whistle politics: How coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and
wrecked the middle class, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Manning P. (2004). Dog whistle politics and journalism: Reporting Arabic and Muslim people in
Sydney newspapers. Australian Centre for Independent Journalism: Sydney. University of
Technology Sydney.
Mazzone, L., Ducci, F., Sota, M.C., Passaniti, E., D’Arrigo, V.G. & Vitiello, B. (2007). The
role of anxiety symptoms in school performance in a community sample of children and
adolescents. BMC Public Health. 7: 347. (5 December). Retrieved 11 October 2017 from
[Link]
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). This is the definition of ‘“Dog Whistle Politics”’ A message only
some can hear. Retrieved 22 June 2017 from [Link]/words-at-play/
dog-whistle-political-meaning.
Mt Nelson, Tasmania (n.d.). Retrieved 6 October 2016 from [Link]
wiki/Mount_Nelson,_Tasmania#Swift_parrot.
Murray, C. & Greenberg, M. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with
school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School
Psychology, 38(5). pp. 423–545.
Neuman, W.R. (1991). The future of mass audience, New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Donoghue, T. (2017). Understanding contemporary education: key themes and issues. New
York/London. Routledge.
Our Watch (n.d.). Retrieved 1 June 2016 from [Link]/.
Overcoming the risks and contradictions of globalization. (2015). London Conference
of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved 11 November 2016 from
[Link]/london-conference-2015/background-papers/overcoming-
risks-and-contradictions-globalization.
Palmer, A. (2013). ‘On Hill, videogame violence not in play’, Politico (20 September).
Retrieved 8 June 2016 from [Link]/story/2013/09/congress-video-game-
violence-navy-yard-097131.
Participatory Media and Moral Panic (2015). Calenda. Retrieved 2 May 2016 from http://
[Link]/317291.
Phillips, L. (2000). Risk, reflexivity and democracy: Mediating expert knowledge in the
news. Nordicom Review. 21(2), pp. 115–135.
 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media 113
PM Fails Australia As Racist Division Continues: Brown (2005). Australian [Link].
(13 December). Retrieved 26 June 2017 from [Link]
[Link].
Poynting, S. & Morgan, G. (2007). Introduction. In S. Poynting and G. Morgan (Eds) (2007)
Outrageous! Moral panics in Australia, Hobart: ACYS Publishing, pp. 3–19.
Poynting, S. & Noble, G. (2003). Dog whistle journalism and Muslim Australians since
2001, Media International Australia, 109, pp. 41–49.
Poynting, S., Noble, G., Tabar, P. & Collins, J. (2004). Bin Laden in the suburbs: criminalising
the Arab other. Sydney: Sydney Institute of Criminology Series.
Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. EDUCASE Review. 40(5) September/Octo
ber, pp. 61–64.
Publishing a school newspaper (2003). Office of the Queensland Studies Authority.
Retrieved 6 October from [Link]/downloads/p_10/kla_tech_sbm_
[Link].
Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra: a nation building state changes its mind, Mel-
bourne: Cambridge University Press.
Quicke, J. (1997). Reflexivity, community and education for the learning society , Curricu-
lum Studies, 5(2). pp. 139–161.
Rodwell, G. (2013). Whose history? Engaging History students through historical fiction,
Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.
Rodwell, G. (2017a). A national history curriculum, racism, a moral panic and risk society
theory, Issues in Educational Research, 27(2). pp. 365–380.
Rodwell, G. (2017b). Moral panics and school educational policy, New York/London: Routledge.
Rodwell, G. & Maadad, N. (2018). Researching Islamophobia and Moral Panics in Australian
School Education. In T. O’Donoghue & S. Clarke (Eds.), New directions in education research
in challenging circumstances. Kingston, Canada: Queen’s University Publications. (in print).
Ryan, S. & Grieshaber, S. (eds.) (2005). Practical transformations and transformational practices:
globalisation, postmodernism, and early childhood Education, Amsterdam: Oxford University
Press.
Safire, W. (2005). Dog whistle. The New York Times Magazine (24 April). Retrieved 22 June
2017 from [Link]/2005/04/24/magazine/[Link].
Sarkar, S. (2015) American Psychological Association affirms link between violent games
and aggression, Polygon (13 August). Retrieved 8 June 2016 from [Link].
com/2015/8/13/9149481/violent-video-games-aggression-research-review-report-apa-
resolution.
Saul, J. (2017). Donald Trump, racial figleaves, and the breadth of bigotry. Huffpost (20 Jan-
uary). Retrieved 26 June 2017 from [Link]/jennifer-saul/donald-
trump-racial-figle_b_9033224.html.
Schliebs, M. & Deutrom, M. (2017). BER waste revealed: Labor’s $36m for closed schools. The
Weekend Australian (17–18 June). Retrieved 21 June from [Link]/national-
affairs/education/labors-building-the-education-revolution-spent-36m-for-closed-schools/
news-story/7bf2156d6657ebd362e6645af025eead.
Shelton, C. & Stassio, F. (2017). How dog whistle politics is changing under Trump,
WUNC91.5 (2 March). Retrieved 22 June 2017 from [Link]
whistle-politics-changing-under-trump#stream/0.
Smith Richardson, S. & Forte, L. (2016). “Dog Whistle” is the GOP’s long-time political
weapon of choice. Rise-up Times (2 September). Retrieved 23 June 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/2016/09/02/dog-whistle-is-the-gops-longtime-political-weapon-of-choice/
comment-page-1/.
114 Risk society theory, neoliberalism, education and media
Springhall, J. (1998). Youth, popular culture and moral panics: Penny gaffs to gangsta-rap, 1830–
1996, New York: St Martins Press.
Stitt, N. (2017). Bernadi backlash raises $200k for school’s Do It In a Dress fundraiser.
ABC News (22 September). Retrieved 24 September 2017 from [Link]/
news/2017-09-22/bernadi-speaks-about-dress-day-fundraiser-blow-out/8975130.
Swain, H. (2015). School libraries shelve tradition to create new learning spaces. The
Guardian. (8 January). Retrieved 19 October 2016 from [Link]/
teacher-network/2015/jan/08/school-libraries-books-students-technology.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (2015). Overcoming the Risks and Contradic-
tions of Globalization. London: Chatham House. Retrieved 25 September 2017 from
[Link]/london-conference-2015/background-papers/overcoming-
risks-and-contradictions-globalization.
Thompson, K. (1998) Moral panics, London/New York: Routledge.
Titley, G. (2013). Column: social media has society in a panic. What does that tell us?
The Journal. (4 January). Retrieved 2 May 2016 from [Link]/readme/
social-media-political-reaction-gavan-titley-740790-Jan2013/.
von Radowitz, J. (2015). Study finds that violent video games may be linked to aggressive
behaviour: Violent video games are a “risk factor” for increased aggression. Independent.
(17 August). Retrieved 29 August 2017 from [Link]/news/science/study-
[Link].
Walker, D. (1999). Anxious nation: Australia and the rise of Asia, 1850–1939, University of
Queensland Press, St Lucia.
Walker, D. (2002). Survivalist anxieties: Australian responses to Asia, 1890s to the present,
Australian Historical Studies, no. 120 (October).
Walker, D. (2003). Race building and the disciplining of White Australia. In L. Jayasuriya, D.
Walker & J. Gothard (eds) (2003) Legacies of White Australia: race, culture and nation, UWAP,
Perth, pp. 212–267.
Walker, D. (2005). Shooting Mabel: warrior, masculinity and Asian invasion, History Austra-
lia, 2(3). Retrieved 24 September 2014 from [Link]
[Link]/ha/article/view/463.
Whitehall, G. (1998). What is economic rationalism? ABC Money, Markets and the Econ-
omy. Retrieved 29 October 2014 from [Link]/money/currency/features/
[Link].
Williams, T. & Boisvert, E. (2014). Parents rally against downsizing of Marryatville High
School library as School Libraries Association of SA warns of grim future. The Advertiser
(25 November. Retrieved 19 October 2016 from [Link]/news/
south-australia/parents-rally-against-downsizing-of-marryatville-high-school-library-
as-school-libraries-association-of-sa-warns-of-grim-future/news-story/d0b3aa8d34e4
a48efa7a3c2141613c99
Zajda, J. (2015). Globalisation and its impact on educational policy. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Second
international handbook on globalisation, education and policy research, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.
124–168.
Zhao, Y. (2015). A world at risk: An imperative for a paradigm shift to cultivate 21st-century
learners, Society 52(2). pp. 129–135 (April), a special issue of the journal commemorating
the 30th anniversary of A nation at risk. Retrieved 25 September 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/content/pdf/10.1007%[Link].
5 National governments respond

Introduction
“Our ‘modernity’ is seen as part of a radical break that occurred around the
early 1970s, born of the transition from an ‘industrial’ to a ‘post- industrial’ or
‘risk society’” [Boudia & Jas: 2007, 317]. Henceforth, “humanity must now
deal with a set of global risks that it has itself engendered through its scientific
and technological activities for which the planet has become a vast laboratory”
[Boudia & Jas: 2007, 317]. Yet, for humanity, here there is a terrible paradox:

in order to handle these “risks”, our societies have an even greater need for
science and technology, which alone can provide the conceptual and tech-
nical tools to enable mankind to grasp, identify, quantify, classify and guard
against such risks. These transformations are also reflected in an unprec-
edented development of regulatory measures concerning administrative
control and management systems at local, national and international levels.

Not surprisingly, then, even under the guise of neoliberal “hands-off” stance,
national governments strive increasingly to gain control over a variety of pro-
grams affecting the nation’s wellbeing – for example, environment, food, health
and education.
Accordingly, this chapter revisits and examines how globalism has impacted
school education. For several decades now, globalism has been a major catalyst
in generating risk society imperatives with school educational policies, such as
improving retention (graduation) rates and lowering school educational start-
ing age. Following Beck [1999, 1–2], Jarvis [2007, 6–7] argued:

globalization thus results in “a power-play between territorially fixed

political actors (government, parliament, unions) and non-territorial eco-
nomic actors (representatives of capital, finance, trade)” and results in the
“political economics of uncertainty and risk” where capital flight, capital
strikes, relocation, offshore production and outsourcing, can challenge the
economic security of the state and its citizens.
116 National governments respond
National governments in the US, the UK and Australia, and indeed a host of
other countries, have experienced mass changes in a quantity of manufactur-
ing and service industries, not least of all school education. Jarvis [2007, 6–7]
explained for Beck this also results in a cascading down,

infusing government policy by rolling back the welfare state as a result

of budget constraints caused by a diminishing corporate tax base (itself
the outcome of polices enacted by the state in its attempt to compete for
foreign investment and capital) and, in turn, erode the state’s ability to sup-
port idle labor, the destitute, the physically disabled, or the provision of
extensive and costly public goods like education and health.

Little wonder, then, in the name of globalisation the three countries under
consideration in this book have looked to capture the booming international
market in school education. In a sense, international students partly subsidise
territory, state and national school educational budgets. Moreover, Jarvis [2007,
6–7] explained the domino effect of all this: “As the state retreats from its tra-
ditional responsibilities and downloads these on to its citizens, in the process
increasing the risk individuals face by making their welfare the preserve of
individual responsibility through self-provision (private disability and life insur-
ance, for example, unemployment insurance, increased personal savings, etc.)”.
Consequently, this chapter next examines the changing face of international
school education
This affects national policies of school education stemming from globalism
and risk society. Accordingly, this chapter then looks to the changing face of
the nations’ workforce requiring these policies to be re-honed and refocused,
not least a drive to keep students at school longer. The politics of school reten-
tion rates and issues of earlier compulsory commencement ages have increased
manifold since the impact of risk society.
Finally, this chapter looks to a peculiarly Australian response to the impact
of globalism and risk society on school educational policy: during the years of
the global financial crisis (GFC), the Australian government instituted a school
education national building strategy in order to manage the economic crises,
offsetting national risk of a recession in the construction industry.

Globalism impacts school education

O’Donoghue [2017, 225] contended there is a need to distinguish between
the much-nuanced term, “globalisation” and the much-less-nuanced term,
“internationalization of education”. Citing Knight [2001, 369], O’Donoghue
[2017] argued: “The notion of the internationalization of education is less
contentious; it has been defined as ‘the process of integrating an international
perspective in the teaching/learning, research and service functions’” [Knight:
2001, 229, as cited in O’Donoghue [2017, 225]. Eschewing any notion of
political imperatives, O’Donoghue [2017, 225] argued: “Such a definition
 National governments respond 117
implies that internationalization of education is a partly planned process and
an integrated phenomenon that is usually agreed upon by one, or more, part-
ners. The planned process of internationalization relies on policy, organization
and resources for enactment”. Admittedly, many theorists would agree with
O’Donoghue [2017] in that there is, “a general consensus that globalization
and internationalization of education are inextricably linked and affected by
technology and change”. While the politics underpinning these changes have
been profound, they also have impacted on national school education in a
number of ways including the development of standardisation and competi-
tion based education, described in much greater detail in Chapter 6. These
other developments include promoting “appropriate flexibility at school level,
creativity in classrooms and risk-taking among students and teachers as part of
their daily work in school” [Sahlberg: 2004, 66].

Changing the face of international school education

“There is a trend in educational systems around the world of shifting the
future emphasis from the progressive learner-centred curriculum to ‘economy-
centred’ vocational training. This was discovered in a comparative study of
education in the USA, Great Britain, Germany, Russia and the Scandinavian
countries” [Zajda: 2015, 154]. We may most emphatically add Australia to this
list. How have national governments responded, and what has been the chang-
ing face of international school education?
In the past, works such as A nation at risk (1983), a report commissioned by
US President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Educa-
tion, was a convenient starting point for an analysis in this general area. Consid-
ered a landmark event in modern US educational history, inter alia, the report
contributed to the ever-growing assertion US schools were failing, touching
off a wave of local, state and federal reform efforts, bearing in mind the notion
of reform is much-troubled in any discourse in educational history. Certainly,
Berliner and Biddle [1996] argued against these findings in relation to A nation
at risk. Their research showed the facts did not support any evidence of fall-
ing standards in education, and certainly little need to consider any “reforms”
relative to a nation at risk in school education. Rather, researchers should be
looking to the political motivation behind the writing of such reports. Such
a line of thought also should begin by looking to such politically motivated
works such as Donnelly’s [2005] Benchmarking Australian primary school curricula
and his [2007 Dumbing down: Outcomes-based and politically correct: the impact of
the culture wars on our schools.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a most insightful research tool in the
kind of research accompanying this book. Serious issues arise with terms such
as “neoliberal reform” used repeatedly in the literature. Do writers mean
“improve”, because that is the only apparent dictionary meaning? Or, do they
mean “neoliberal developments/changes”? “Reform” can only be synony-
mous with “improve”, perhaps, as is the case with some writers, journalists and
118 National governments respond
politicians, even synonymous with words such as “progress”. And that is an
issue needing to be addressed by researchers.
There are other issues with neoliberalism that can be challenged in the
research on the language of neoliberalism: for example, words such “stake-
holder”, is a part of the whole neoliberal discourse, and used as if to placate
any moral panic or political opposition spinning off from educational policies
associated with neoliberalism. Perhaps, calling these school educational devel-
opments for what they are may provoke a moral panic among sections of soci-
ety. Assisted by CDA, there is growing corpus of literature on this topic of why
the neoliberal tide began to flow, and why so many educators and politicians
abandoned the progressive ship, and clambered on board vessels, which I argue
often were travelling in the opposite direction. Risk society theory provides
many insights into the neoliberal developments of the 1980s onwards.
Analysing the language of school educational policy comes with some severe
qualifications. Bacchi [2000, 46] argued: “It is inconsistent to search for a ‘cor-
rect’ definition of this form of discourse”. In her view, to attempt to provide a
definition would “contradict the logic of the structure of thought in which the
term ‘discourse’ now has a newly powerful critical function”.

Globalising and internationalising school education

Globalisation and the competitive market forces of the neoliberal ethos have
generated a massive growth in the knowledge industries that are having pro-
found effects on society and educational institutions [Zajda, 2015, 154]. Indeed,
readers should Google some websites of universities and secondary schools, and
research the effort these institutions make in attracting overseas students.
Chubb and Moe’s [1990] Politics, markets and America’s schools during the early
1990s was an influential book advocating for market “reforms” in education.
Despite being primarily written about the education system in the US, “within
a year of its release, this work was being quoted more than any other text on
schooling policy . . . including in Australia” [Marginson: 1997a, 130; 1997b].
The logic of the argument contained in this work was simple: educational
authorities, schools and teachers would provide students with a better educa-
tion if they were made to compete against one another. Therefore, a double
regime of consumer choice – between schools and teachers – must be intro-
duced. This simple argument has been used as an ideological justification for a
wide range of so-called educational “reforms” across many countries.
An index to the effect of Hawke-Keating’s drive to open and deregularise
Australia’s markets, is the growth of international schools and schools offer-
ing the International Baccalaureate (IB). This was an obvious outcome of the
internationalising of the school education market in the growing adoption by
schools, colleges and education systems of IB, and its influence on Australian
schooling. Consequently, one purpose of this section of our book is to assess
the growth of IB and its impact generally on school education. Another pur-
pose is to assess the influence of international agencies such as the OECD
 National governments respond 119
on school education policy. Due to these transnational influences, education
“reforms” are more often externally initiated, and multiple scales interact in
the dynamics through which these reforms are negotiated, formulated, imple-
mented and even evaluated. For example, educational policy makers constantly
keep an eye on OECD statements and PISA scores.
“In the global culture, the university, as with other educational institutions,
is now expected to invest its capital in the knowledge market. It increasingly
acts as an entrepreneurial institution” [Zajda: 2015, 154]. Many would agree
with Zajda [2015, 154] when he argued, “such a managerial and entrepre-
neurial re-orientation, as part of neoliberal ideology, would have been seen in
the past as antithetical to the traditional ethos of the university of teaching for
providing knowledge for its own sake”. But it is not only universities and other
higher educational institutions which have been transformed in this manner
since the 1980s.
On 5 March 1997, in Australia the House of Representatives debated the
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Bill 1996. It
had been returned from the Senate requesting minor alterations. Tony Abbott,
Liberal Member for the New South Wales seat of Warringah, and at the time
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Train-
ing and Youth Affairs, and destined as a future Prime Minister, moved: “This
legislation is an important part of quality assurance in a very important devel-
oping Australian industry” [CofA: 1997, No. 212, 2041]. Indeed, according to
Abbott, “our export education industry is now, on some measures, bigger than
the wheat industry. It is a $1.9 billion a year industry. It attracts over 50,000
students every year to our country” [CofA: 1997, No. 212, 2041]. Indeed,
education had become an industry. In Abbott’s words: “As one distinguished
academic said to me graphically but inelegantly the other day, ‘Every overseas
student on our campus is $100,000 on the hoof for Australia’” [CofA: 1997,
No. 212, 2041]. This was an inelegant reference to how school education was
assuming new economic proportions over traditional export industries such as
beef.
During the early decades of the 21st century, education assumed an increas-
ing importance in this trade relationship: witness Australia’s services exports
to China, “valued at A$5.5 billion in 2009, are dominated by educational and
recreational travel and have averaged annual growth of 18 per cent over the
past five years . . . China remains Australia’s largest source of overseas students,
with around 155,000 enrolments in Australian educational institutions in 2009”
[Australian Embassy, China: n.d., n.p.]. Schools such as the Glenunga Inter-
national High School (GIHS), South Australia’s highest performing govern-
ment school, with its IB curriculum attracts an international clientele [GIHS:
n.d.]. The IB, in particular, has maintained its role as an export commodity.
Of course, in various ways this is repeated across all of Australia’s educational
jurisdictions.
“Education in the global economy is likely to produce a great deal of dis-
content and conflict” [Zajda: 2015, 154]. Responding to research by Anderson
120 National governments respond
[1996], Zajda [2015] contended: “Globalisation . . . with its evolving and
growing in complexity social stratification of nations, technology and educa-
tion systems, has a potential to affect social conflict”.

The changing face of the nations’ workforce

Of course, risk society is not a cause of the massive waves of immigrants enter-
ing Australia, the UK and the US, albeit this constitutes another aspect of risk
society, and certainly one impacting heavily on school education in the three
nations. First, let us consider one view of where these 21st-century waves of
immigration fit into risk society theory.
Koulish [2016] examined the contested terrain of immigration enforce-
ment is a transition moment between modern and late-modern immigration
discourses. The modern period of immigration enforcement focuses on the
certainty of territorial integrity and border security, deploying technologies of
plenary powers to ensure the exclusion of “othered” immigrants. Consider, for
example, the political motives of those political elites arguing for the “leave”
vote in the Brexit referendum. Jeory [2016, n.p.] wrote: “British Muslims are
experiencing racism not just in public places but even in school”. Indeed,
“British Muslims are suffering an ‘explosion’ in faith-based hatred with many
women now afraid to conduct their daily lives, according to a new report
which also warns of heightened racism following the vote on Brexit” [Jeory:
2016, n.p.]. Moreover, “political leaders including David Cameron and Jeremy
Corbyn both voiced concern in the Commons . . . while Labour grandee Har-
riet Harman said many now seemed to believe it was ‘open season’ for racists”
[Jeory: 2016, n.p.].
In modern immigration enforcement there is a clear preference for risk
strategies in managing the uncertainty of unidentified and undocumented
immigrants in a post-September 11 world where wave-after-wave of desperate
people seek to leave the tragedies of Middle-Eastern civil wars behind as they
search for entry into countries such as the UK, the US and Australia [Koul-
ish: 2016]. The outcome is a control society similar to the one delineated by
Beck et al. [2003]. One impact has been an attack on multiculturalism, albeit
an assault which had been under way for some decades, according to Poynting
and Mason [2007]. In fact, for these researchers, “the much-clichéd Day that
Changed the World” of 11 September 2001, “did not actually see the world
reinvented anew” [Poynting & Mason: 2007, 63]. In Australia at least, this was
also well under way before 11 September 2001, as evidenced in the ideological
elements displayed in the moral panics over purported “ethnic gang rape” and
over “boat people”, culminating in the Tampa crisis in August 2001, an event
critical to the return of the Howard Coalition Government at the 10 Novem-
ber 2001 elections. How did this manifest itself in Australian school educa-
tion? Were there parallel developments in the UK and the US? Governments
have always played a pivotal role in multiculturalism, and school education was
important in this process.
 National governments respond 121
What is the impact of immigration on school populations in the UK? The
role of direct immigration on UK school populations is contested: “Any
increases in the number of school children caused by migration is more down
to children being born to migrants in the UK rather than children migrating
here each year. So it’s fair to say that the biggest aspect influencing increas-
ing pupil numbers is changes to the birth rate” [Sippitt: 2015, n.p.]. But what
about the indirect influences of immigration on school education, particularly
in respect to developing racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia?

The politics of school education retention,

or graduation rates
Directly influenced by risk society imperatives, during the 1980s political and
national discourse began to embrace issues associated with school education
retention, or graduation rates, and not from any social justice point of view,
but rather imperatives derived from risk society thinking. Sections of the US
school educational population were doing well with retention rates, but not so
if the students were Hispanic, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native: “In
school year 2013–14, the adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for public
high schools rose to an all-time high of 82 per cent”, indicating “approximately
4 out of 5 students graduated with a regular high school diploma within 4 years
of the first time they started 9th grade” [Public high school graduation rates:
2016, n.p.]. Asian/Pacific Islander students achieved the highest ACGR (89 per
cent), followed by White (87 per cent), Hispanic (76 per cent), Black (73 per
cent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (70 per cent) students.
A common element for school education retention, or graduation rates
in the US, the UK and Australia is race – young coloured people are more
likely not to complete their 12 years of formal schooling than others. Often,
media reports of a nation’s achievements in this regard are expressed in stark
risk society terms: there is an obsession with what this means for a nation’s
future. For example, the USNews [Data editor: 2015, n.p.] reported how the
nation “spends significantly more on education than other OECD countries”.
In 2010, the US spent 39 per cent more per full-time student for elementary
and secondary education than the average for other countries in the OECD,
“according to the National Center for Education Statistics”.
Yet, in a common response across the three countries we have under con-
sideration in this book, “more money spent doesn’t translate to better educa-
tional outcomes” showing “American education is rife with problems, starting
with the gaping differences between white students and students of color” [Data
editor: 2015, n.p.]. Despite more than 60 years after Brown vs. Board of Educa-
tion, “school systems in the United States are separate and unequal”. According
to this report the future was bleak, not so much for the disadvantaged students,
but for the nation. Extrapolated from 2011 figures, “by 2022, the number of
Hispanic students in public elementary and secondary schools is projected to
grow 33 per cent. The number of multi-racial students is expected to grow
122 National governments respond
44 per cent”. Consequently, as the percentage of white students in US school
education shrinks and the percentage of students of colour grow, “the U.S. will
be left with an education system that doesn’t serve the majority of its children
properly; the gaps in education will prove especially problematic” [Data editor:
2015, n.p.]. In a similar manner, race determines school education retention
rates in the UK and Australia.
Particularly since the 1980s and illustrating growing concerns for risk society
thinking by governments, US high school dropout rates, or retention rates have
attracted the attention of researchers. As one researcher put it:

probably the crudest indicator of unequal educational outcomes: high

school dropout rates. Dropout rates traditionally fall at 25 per cent. In
many urban high schools, however, they reach 60 and 70 per cent. Drop-
ping out of high school is, in some schools, a nearly anomalous event. In
other schools, it is a shared tradition. The latter schools are low income,
urban and often “of color”, and in some communities, the consequences
are almost always devastating.
[Fine: 1991, 21]

Government educational policy bureaucrats were being shown how racism

impacted on school educational policy, and at the same time challenged risk
society thinking.
Such are governmental concerns, media reports of poor retention, or gradu-
ation, rates prompt national anxiety, maybe even moral panic. When UK media
announced the OECD countries had “some of the worst dropout rates from
schools and colleges in the developed world – more than nations such as Esto-
nia, Greece and Slovenia – it “prompted renewed fears that a ‘lost generation’
will find themselves stranded without jobs or qualifications” [Loveys: 2011,
n.p.]. This anxiety was increased when it was revealed this “comes despite huge
spending on education under Labour”. The politics of retention, or graduation
rates was huge. “In the UK almost one in ten school leavers were without a job
or college place in 2009, the most recent available data. This is higher than the
OECD average of 8 per cent. Of the EU nations, only Spain, Italy and Ireland
had higher rates”.
National anxiety in the UK was increased when it was revealed further that
higher education dropout rates, or the quality of higher education graduation
rates also suffered [Havergal: 2016]. In 2000, the UK had the third-highest
graduation rate among OECD countries, with 37 per cent of young people
getting a degree, compared with an average of 28 per cent. Denmark and
Norway scored the same and only Finland (41%) and New Zealand (50%)
were higher. But in the UK in 2008 the proportion had fallen to 35 per cent,
“below an average of 38% and behind countries including Iceland, Portugal
and Ireland” [Williams: 2010, n.p.].
In Australia, risk society imperatives were biting into the Hawke Gov-
ernment (1983–1996), and at its centre was the politics of retention rates.
 National governments respond 123
Generally, government expenditure on school education under Hawke also
rose significantly. On a per-student basis, the increase in Commonwealth fund-
ing amounted to 136 per cent for government schools and 71 per cent for
non-government schools. Addressing the long-standing Labour commitment
to equity, Minister for Education, Susan Ryan, established a Participation and
Equity Program providing around $250 million mainly to schools with low
retention to the end of secondary education from 1983 to 1987. Partly resulting
from a greater financial assistance to students from low-income backgrounds,
retention rates dramatically increased. The percentage of students in secondary
education rose substantially, from 35 per cent in 1982 to 77 per cent in 1992
[Ryan & Bramston, 2003].
During the second Hawke ministry, Australia’s economic circumstances
were causing alarm in Cabinet and the greater Australian economic polity. In
late 1987, Dawkins and A.C. Holding, Minister for Employment Services and
Youth Affairs, issued a booklet, Skills for Australia. Its opening sentence flagged
what the next two decades held for federal-state-territory relations in school
education: “Skills and skill formation policies are of central importance to the
task of structural adjustment facing Australia” [Dawkins & Holding: 1987, 1].
For Dawkins and Holding [1987], education and training systems must play
an active role in this process. The retention rate to Year 12, 49 per cent in 1986,
had to reach 65 per cent by the early 1990s. To achieve this it would be neces-
sary to make the final years of secondary education more attractive. At the same
time the “quality, structure and flexibility” of education and training also had to
be improved. “More needs to be known about levels of competence achieved
by our students at school, especially in the core disciplines of language, math-
ematics and science” [Dawkins & Holding: 1987, 2].
Dawkins elaborated the message in his May1988 statement, Strengthening
Australia’s schools, calling for a “common curriculum framework” and greater
emphasis on higher levels of literacy, numeracy and analytical skills [Dawkins:
1988]. The Minister added that this common framework should be comple-
mented by a common national approach to assessment. This ushered in a
period of outcome based education (OBE) where student learning was stated
in demonstrable and measurable outcomes very similar to the behavioural
objectives curriculum movement a decade earlier, represented by theorists such
as Robert Gagnè.

The nexus of school retention/completion rates,

universities, vocational education and training and
immigration policy
Risk society imperatives were accompanied by changing relationships between
school education policies and immigration in the US, the UK and Australia.
In 1997, Ainley, Malley and Lamb [1997, 4] from the ACER reported to
the OECD “in general the labour force is well educated. In 1996 approxi-
mately one-half of the [Australia] labour force held a post-school educational
124 National governments respond
qualification (degree, diploma, certificate or trade qualification)”. This com-
pared with “in 1983 the equivalent proportion was 40 per cent”. Indeed, the
growth in employment had “been particularly rapid for degree holders”. This
has meant that: “Over the past 20 years the proportion of full-time workers
with university degrees has tripled to reach about 16 per cent in 1996. Even
though there has been some decline in the relative earnings of university grad-
uates, demand for tertiary education continued to grow through to 1996”. Of
course, by 2015, this had grown exponentially with distance education (online)
and part-time study rapidly increasing.
Selected migration programs are one thing, but refugees and forced migration
bring new challenges to risk society imperatives relative to school education.
“Almost a decade into the twenty-first century, displacement remains a sig-
nificant global phenomenon and a prominent international policy concern”
[Lubkemann: 2010, 48]. Indeed,

while 16 million people have an official status as refugees that is recognized

by the United Nations, the number of those to leave their homes to avoid
violence, persecution, or natural calamity is dramatically higher and has
grown substantially since the turn of the millennium.
[Lubkemann: 2010, 48]

Increasingly, refugees and forced migrants have suffered as cumulative num-

bers of traditional host countries question their refugee policies. “With the
unwillingness of governments everywhere to host refugees, the violence and
hostility from host populations and governments towards refugees has grown”
[Lubkemann: 2010, 48]. In fact, “even governments that historically were gen-
erous hosts (such as Tanzania and Iran) started to carry out large-scale forced
repatriations during the late 1990s and have continued to do so periodically
since” [Lubkemann: 2010, 48].
Meanwhile, children of refugees suffer in respect to school education in their
host countries. Tragically, countries such as Lebanon, long wracked itself by
civil war and sectarian strife, by 2014 showed a decided hardening attitude to
refugees from neighbouring Syria in respect granting refugee children access to
its schools [Maadad & Rodwell: 2016, 117].
By the concluding years of the second decade of the 21st century, Australia,
the UK and the US can be added to this list of countries which now eschew
refugees. But some refugees do manage to be relocated. How do they fair in
respect to school education?
“Educational achievement differences can . . . derive from immigrants’ prob-
lems of integration into the host country” [Schnepe: 2006, 201]. There is a
marked difference in educational achievement between first – and second-gen-
eration migrants. Moreover, “the ability of the immigrant pupil to communicate
in the language of the host country is a further crucial aspect of achievement . . .”
(emphasis in original) [Schnepe: 2006, 201]. Further, “another important fac-
tor might be school segregation – the uneven distribution of immigrants across
 National governments respond 125
schools” (emphasis in original) [Schnepe: 2006, 201]. Given these difficulties,
immigrant students are likely to be confronted by a variety of xenophobic- and
Islamophobic-inspired moral panics in their host country, an increasing phe-
nomenon [Rodwell: 2017].
Often, certain sections of the media have been shown to be unsympathetic
to school educational issues associated with immigrant students. For example, a
conservative journalist reporting another conservative reporter declaring in an
article titled “Immigration system is groaning under influx of new migrants”,
and declaring: “Our program is no longer working in the national interest. . . .
My guess is that more people are beginning to appreciate this fact, particularly
as they bear the costs of congestion, loss of amenity and safety, and declin-
ing housing affordability” [van Onselen: 2016, n.p.]. Basing his response on
more rigorous data, another argued: “A different perspective on the Australian
political mood is provided by the 2016 Scanlon Foundation survey. Contrary
to Sloan’s ‘guess’, survey data indicate a continuing low level of concern over
immigration”. Indeed, “in 2016 just 34% of respondents considered that the
immigration intake was ‘too high’, the lowest recorded in the Scanlon Foun-
dation surveys. This matched the findings of recent Lowy Institute and Roy
Morgan polls” [Marcus: 2016, n.p.].
Through the 1990s to the second decade of the 21st century, Australia’s
intake of skilled migrants was based on its own market conditions, but also
on what other comparable countries such as the US and the UK offered. In
1997, the US had by far the greatest intake [Cobb-Clark & Connolly: 1997].
Presumably, with increasing numbers of Australian students opting for a uni-
versity education in preference to vocational education and training (VET), the
Australian demand would only increase.

A question of school education starting age

Just as there have been risk society induced pressures to keep students at school
longer, there are growing pressures to have them attend school at a lower age.
“Where early life fails to give the individual the recognition and relating that it
requires, in relationships where needs go not so much unmet as unrecognised,
the individual’s development is market by inner conflict” [Orbach: 1998, 93].
The child’s development and early learning is severely disrupted, and in societ-
ies where risk society thinking is driven by globalism, and the internationalisa-
tion of education, many political elites demand the state intervene, and provide
compulsory school education for children at an increasingly lower age.
During 2015–16, Australian public discourse began to adopt issues asso-
ciated with the ages of compulsory schooling [e.g., Munro: 2016]. This
prompted some national discourse on the topic of schooling the nation’s young
people longer. Finland was cited as an exemplar. Indeed, “starting children
in school before they’re naturally developmentally ready has no scientifically
proven long-term advantage worldwide” [Khoo: 2016, n.p.]. Khoo [2016, n.p.]
further argued: “Finnish children start school at seven years old and school
126 National governments respond
attendance is only compulsory for nine years. Furthermore, Finland has kept
school hours short, lessons fun, homework minimal, and standardized test-
ing non-existent for its students”. These comments did little to alleviate the
Tasmanian Government’s woes, and the pressures it was coming under from
risk society imperatives. Inter alia, the resulting public discourse reflected the
lengths state government in Australia would go in order to put the state in a
favourable place in the nation’s school educational league tables.

The UK: Islamophobia and risk society initiatives

wrapped in moral panics and dog-whistle journalism
and politics
With relentless racist-, xenophobic- and Islamophobic political dog-whistling
and other media attention and alleged distortions, Muslim students in UK
schools and colleges shared a fate possibly more extreme than those in the
US and Australia. For years, Islamophobia-inspired politics and media dog-
whistles had played across the UK. For example, Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of
Tower Hamlets Council, wrote how the Tory press had played the Islamo-
phobic “dog-whistle” when reporting on Muslims in UK schools and colleges
[Rahman: 2013]. The national government was faced with monumental risk
society imperatives.
In one Islamophobic incident, the head of the Office for Standards in Edu-
cation (Ofsted) announced that “Britain’s primary school inspectors will ques-
tion girls who wear the Muslim headscarf at school, the head of the Office
for Standards in Education (Ofsted)” [UK schools to question Muslim girls
wearing headscarf: 2017, n.p.]. The spokesperson for Ofsted, “Amanda Spiel-
man explained the move was to tackle situations in which wearing a headscarf
‘could be interpreted as sexualization’ of school children” [UK schools to ques-
tion Muslim girls wearing headscarf: 2017, n.p.]. Schools were asked “to record
pupils’ responses to questions as to why they wear the hijab to school” [UK
schools to question Muslim girls wearing headscarf: 2017, n.p.].
Sections of UK society responded during 2017 with research in an attempt
to build public awareness of the impact of these developments, particularly
those of the Birmingham Trojan horse affair on UK Muslims [e.g., Miah:
2017; Elahai & Kahn: 2017]. But first, this section should touch on the now
infamous Birmingham “Trojan horse” affair. This exposed some serious issues
concerning Islamophobia, the media and school education, issues that may one
day in the future – if not now – connect with Islamophobia, the media and
school education in the US and Australia as these countries respond similarly
to risk society dictates. The existing conditions making possible dog-whistle
journalism and politics poses serious problems for schools and their communi-
ties, if not the nation as a whole.
Earlier referred to in Chapter 3, in November 2013, Birmingham city coun-
cil received a strange document in the post. It was a photocopy of a letter,
which seemed to be part of a correspondence between Muslims conspiring to
 National governments respond 127
takeover local schools and run them according to strict Islamic principles. An
anonymous note claiming the writer(s) had found these pages in their boss’s
office was attached to the photocopy.
Supposedly written by an Islamist offering advice to a co-conspirator, the
photocopied letter outlined a five-stage strategy called “Operation Trojan
horse”:

• Step one: identify vulnerable schools where most of the pupils are Muslim.
• Step two: identify a group of sympathetic parents to agitate for an Islamic
agenda.
• Step three: put in place governors who adhere to the same conservative
Islamic beliefs.
• Step four: identify staff to disrupt the school from within by changing rules
and undermining unsympathetic colleagues.
• Step five: run anonymous letter and PR campaigns with the aim of forcing
the head teacher to resign.
[Shackle: 2017, n.p.]

“The letter stated that this strategy ‘is tried and tested within Birmingham’, and
named specific schools where it had supposedly been carried out” [Shackle:
2017, n.p.].
Predictably, the story soon “grew legs” in the media. However, while “the
Trojan horse” letter itself was quickly discredited as a fake . . . the allegations
it contained took on a life of their own, sensationalising the growing Islamo-
phobia. “Revealed: Islamist plot dubbed ‘Trojan horse’ to replace teachers in
Birmingham schools with radicals”, said one Daily Mail article a few weeks
after the story broke. “Council leader calls for fightback on ‘schools jihad plot’,
said the Birmingham Mail not long after” [Shackle: 2017, n.p.].
In Australian terminology the Birmingham Trojan horse affair turned out
to be “a furphy”, a tragic invention. In the words of Shackle [2017, n.p.],
“three years after the Trojan horse letter surfaced, there is still no proof that a
conspiracy existed”. Indeed, in respect to an Islamophobic response the associ-
ated schools in the affair “had become too Islamic, that some invisible line was
crossed from the compulsory level of religion that schools must provide to the
point where it was ‘undue’” [Shackle: 2017, n.p.]. And in an educational sys-
tem “that is not secular, such as Britain’s, there is no unambiguous way to draw
such boundaries” [Shackle: 2017, n.p.]. In the absence of any clear evidence
either way, this seems the most appropriate explanation. The role of the media
in the affair, however, deserves continued scrutiny.
Collectively, most UK newspapers stories, “written in February 2017,
developed the theory that sinister Islamists are set on seizing control of British
schools beyond Birmingham to the northwest of the country” [Shackle: 2017,
n.p.].
In the interest of balance, we can now turn to Muslim accounts of the
Birmingham Trojan horse affair. With a hashtag of racism, and a subheading
128 National governments respond
of: “With few exceptions, journalists failed to examine the underlying facts
while repeating what turned out to be false allegations” Osborne [2018, n.p.]
reported on what he viewed as false news. This occurred in “a culture of false
reporting”, and may have had wider international underpinnings, with con-
nections to internal politics associated with Gaza [Osborne: 2018, n.p.].
Islamophobia and its connection with the media were perceived as a chal-
lenge for all, and in the UK the Runnymede Foundation responded with its
twentieth anniversary report. Not long after the publication of the 1997 report,
it was claimed “Muslims and their perceived lack of integration emerged as a
key area of public policy concern. Over the last 20 years numerous inquiries
and reports have characterized Muslims as leading ‘parallel lives’ and as distinc-
tive in their behaviour and values” [Elahai & Kahn: 2017, 5]. Integration of
Muslims into the broader UK society was viewed as an essential panacea – and
for us, a reasoned risk society response.
In particular Elahai and Kahn [2017, 5] noted how “the integration debate is
played out with reference to Muslim ‘no-go areas’ and images of niqab-wearing
women. Schools have become the frontline of managing this, through trans-
mitting so-called ‘fundamental British values’ and the policing of transgres-
sors”. Indeed, for these researchers “the ‘Trojan horse’ hoax symbolized the
inflection of Islamophobia in the policing of Muslim mobilization” [Elahai &
Kahn: 2017, 5]. And more recently, “the Casey review highlighted the mood
in government that sees Muslims as ‘outsiders’ who need to be brought ‘inside’”
[Elahai & Kahn: 2017, 5].
The Casey review was “an independent review by Dame Louise Casey
into opportunity and integration” [Casey: 2016, n.p.]. It revealed superficial
attempts by all governments to “paper over” deeply seated social problems in
the UK. It attacked “attempts by governments to boost ethnic integration as
‘saris, samosas and steel drums for the well-intentioned’” [Asthana & Walker:
2016, n.p.].
In this socio-political climate UK Muslims continued to suffer. The media
had assisted in perpetuating this tragic view of the UK Muslim community,
positioning them as outsiders, and opposed to Britishness.

“the Muslim community” as homogeneous, outside of and opposed to

Britishness, and understood through stereotypes of poverty and the under-
class, criminality, misogyny, cultural and generational conflict, identity cri-
sis, and the clash of civilizations. These older racial and ethnic stereotypes
have been dusted down and recycled to explain everything from the 2001
“riots” . . . to grooming, “gangs”, forced marriage, FGM (female genital
mutilation), mythical Trojan horses . . . and electoral misconduct.

All this being an appalling echo of “the ‘Asian gang’ folk devil of the 1990s . . .
[the] demonized black youth in the 1980s [and the] urban ‘gangs’ in the 2000s”
The Trojan horse affair critically exposed the need for an evaluation of
the security discourses in light of theoretical insights from the study of racial
 National governments respond 129
politics [Miah: 2017]. Miah [2017] explained how the sociology of race and
schooling in the UK has long been associated with a number of diverse areas
of study, not least racial inequality, multiculturalism, citizenship and identity.
Until very recently, very little attention has been given to securitisation and
race within the context of education and even less focus has been given to the
links between the question of security and racial politics. Miah [2017] argued
for the need for research on the complex relationship between racial politics
and schooling, as, indeed, this present book does. [Also see, Hussain: 2008.]
“The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act contains powers to help the UK
respond to the threat of terrorism, and as such was deeply seated in risk society.
It received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015. [It seeks to] enhance the ability
of operational agencies to monitor and control the actions of those who pose a
threat” [Counter-Terrorism and Security Act; n.d.]. Schools are at the forefront of
this legislation through the Prevent program, a mandatory program and a legal
duty for schools, colleges and universities.
The Prevent program has three main aims:

1 Responds to the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects

of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views.
2 Provides practical help to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism
and ensure they are given appropriate advice and support.
3 Works with a wide range of sectors (including education, criminal justice,
faith, charities, online and health) where there are risks of radicalisation
that we need to deal with
[What is Prevent: n.d., n.p.]

A clear instance of risk society imperatives, but for some commentators, how-
ever, all the program achieved was an opportunity and instances for moral panic
and dog-whistle journalism and politics:

They included instances in which information was apparently gathered

from Muslim primary school children without their parents’ consent; Pre-
vent being used to bypass disciplinary processes during the attempted dis-
missal of a school dinner lady; a 17-year-old referred to the police by his
college authorities because he had become more religious; and the cancel-
lation of university conferences on Islamophobia.
[Cobain: 2016, n.p.]

Indeed, the “Justice Initiative report says viewing radical Islam as precursor to
terrorism risks human rights and is counterproductive” [Eroding Trust: 2016,
n.p.]. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) responded by backing a motion
“to reject the government’s counter-radicalisation Prevent strategy at its annual
conference” [Qurashi: 2016, n.p.]. This motion followed “the National Union
of Students (NUS) motion to boycott the Prevent strategy and its subsequent
activism under the banner of ‘students not suspects’” [Qurashi: 2016, n.p.].
130 National governments respond
Qurashi [2016, n.p.] concluded in his a Guardian Opinion column that “teach-
ers are right to reject a counter-radicalisation strategy that frames terrorism as a
Muslim problem and demonises an entire community”.
Qurashi [2016, n.p.] concluded with his view on how the UK media shapes
Islamophobia in that country:

This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature
of Muslims in Britain, and is influential in shaping people’s assumptions about
Muslims and Islam – forming the basis of Islamophobia. It sets the tone for
how ordinary people interact with Muslims and can be seen to provide per-
mission to hate. The dogwhistle nature of politics also means that politicians
disseminate messages that tap into the basest fears, insecurities, and stereo-
types to attract new voters – finally, think about the message that the dispro-
portionate levels of stop and search of Muslims sends to wider society about
guilt by association and racial and religious profiling.

Meanwhile, Brexit has meant a continued flurry of media and political inspired
dog-whistling in UK schools [Bulman: 2017].

School education national building strategy and

the management of economic crises
We are reminded of [Matten: 2004, 387] who recognised political approaches
to tackle risk find themselves regularly confronted with certain mental barriers.
This was certainly the case with the Building Education Revolution (BER)
of the Australian Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government. Matten [2004, 387] was
describing environmental policies and politics, but the same thesis applies to
the national policies and politics of the use of school education as an economic
lever and a mechanism to manage economic risk on a national scale.
When the Rudd Government was swept to power in 2007 it understood
that the outgoing Howard Government had bequeathed a huge surplus due to
a decade of very favourable commodity export balances, particularly in its trade
in iron ore and coal with China. However, then came the GFC with its dire
risks to the Australian economy. With fears of a global recession, early in 2009
the Rudd Government announced the $42bn in economic stimulus spend-
ing. The BER was a part of this, and in terms of its scope has no international
parallels, but whether or not it achieved its stated objectives remains contested
[Newton: 2017].
The shock of the GFC was still being felt through until 2011, with many
countries “knee-deep” in recession. Supported by a strong surplus budget
through the last stages of the Howard years (1996–2007), with the onset of the
GFC the Rudd Government was able to divert a recession through pumping
huge amounts of money in such projects as “the Pink Bats” home insulation
scheme and the BER [Harrison, 2010]. The latter came under heavy criti-
cism from the Australian National Audit Office, and particularly from News
 National governments respond 131
Corporation, and was used often by opponents of the Rudd Government as a
political weapon.
Totalling A$16.2 billion, the BER had three elements:

• Primary schools ($14.2b): providing new and refurbished halls, libraries

and classrooms
• Science and Language Centres for secondary schools ($821.8m): providing
new and refurbished science laboratories and language learning centres
• National School Pride program ($1.28b): providing new and refurbished
covered outdoor learning areas, shade structures, sporting facilities and
other environmental programs.

Almost from the very beginning, the veracity of Matten’s [2004, 387] observa-
tions was obvious concerning the politics of the national risk strategy. Indeed,
the program has attracted attention from critics of the government for alleged
“rorting” and for not delivering value-for-money outcomes. All the essential
elements of a moral panic were soon obvious, with an obvious political agenda
and News Corporation was in the vanguard of the media attack, for many
observers successfully linking the supposed BER rorts with another Rudd
Government scandal in the form of the pink batts (Home Insulation Program)
imbroglio [Rodwell: 2017].
In April 2010, the government announced the formation of the BER
Implementation Taskforce to ensure projects are providing value for money.
Education Minister Julia Gillard had already defended the BER by claiming it
was already one of the most scrutinised policies in the nation’s history.
Opponents of the BER sought to base the imbroglio on private versus gov-
ernment school efficiencies, in claiming the nation’s private schools managed
the BER more efficiently without the rorts evident in the government sector.
Gillard responded by claiming “she did not accept the proposition that the
non-government school sector was achieving better value for money than the
government sector, attributing the relatively higher level of complaints to the
fact that they represented 5500 of the nation’s 7500 primary schools” [Franklin:
2010, n.p.].
Gillard also denied that states or major contractors were gouging money as
management fees or profit, at the same time claiming “management fees plus
incentives for timely delivery were averaging about 4 per cent of the total cost
of projects” [Franklin: 2010, n.p.]. A government appointed taskforce, headed
by Brad Orgill, former chairman and chief executive of UBS Australasia sub-
stantiated Gillard’s point when it reported to the government in December
2010. The report found that most of BER projects had been successfully deliv-
ered, with only 3 per cent of the schools involved in the program making
complaints. Projects in NSW received the most complaints. The third and final
report by Orgill found that BER projects in New South Wales, Queensland
and Victoria overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent on average,
compared with Catholic Independent schools and more than 55 per cent. The
132 National governments respond
Australian National Audits Office (ANAO) investigation into the project ruled
that comparison with those projects were not valid as the standards applied
to government school facilities were higher [Building the Education Revolu-
tion . . .: 2010, n.p.].
Moreover in March 2010, Minister Gillard also claimed through News Cor-
poration media critics of the “BER did not understand the ‘transformative’
potential of providing new and flexible school infrastructure – replacing old-
style school rooms with flexible spaces that allowed for far greater flexibility
in teaching – an issue she said was frequently raised with her by principals
and teachers” [Franklin: 2010, n.p.]. Indeed she further claimed through the
same media source “there will be kids who get a better education because of
BER – not only the kids that are in school today, but the ones who will follow
them and follow them” [Franklin: 2010, n.p.]. There were some international
commentators who agreed with her, maintaining in August 2010 that the gov-
ernment’s stimulus package, including the BER, was well-designed by world
standards and that some waste was inevitable, but it remained “one of the best
designed in the world” [Metherell: 2010, n.p.].
When the academic researchers made their contribution to the debate, per-
haps ideology again played a role: for example, Kayrooz and Parker (2010, 161)
argued Rudd’s BER was a “rushed response”, which “lacked the strategic and
structural blueprint needed to realise its underlying ideals”. Other researchers
claimed the BER represented a “case study” of how governments should not
pursue large-scale public expenditure programs. In fact, the BER illustrated the
pitfalls of large-scale public expenditure programs, and it did not provide value
for money [Lewis et al.: 2014].
Australians had never known an economic stimulus package which used the
development of the three elements of school education capital improvement
as that entailed in the BER. Indeed, even in 2007–2009 many Australians
were just then becoming used to the dominant role of the Commonwealth in
school education [Rodwell: 2017]. The BER was blatantly new and challenged
many conservatives. With an aggressive Opposition led by Tony Abbott, and
supported by a partisan media, the early onset of the moral panic surrounding
the BER had high levels of resonance with many Australians. This has been
a demonstrable example of Aspinall’s [2014] notion of risk aversion as a case
of positive impact on school education, referred to earlier in the Introduc-
tion to this book, with many parallels in political volatility with such events
as the environmental movement of the 1970s. Without any obvious interna-
tional parallels, still, the BER in relation to risk society theory has been much
neglected by researchers despite its apparent connections.

Analysis and conclusions

Only now are researchers beginning to analyse the massive changes that
occurred in school educational policy since the onset of risk society, sometime
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Nations were undergoing massive changes.
 National governments respond 133
Risk society’s relentless fellow travellers were globalism and neoliberalism, and
it immediately began to impact school educational policy. Education became
an international commodity, a marker in nations’ relentless drive for a balance
of payments. In a sense, nations could afford to lose manufacturing industries,
if they gained in exports in terms of school education.
Henceforth, where national development relied on the knowledge and skills
of the workforce, an effective education system became even more important
for socio-economic engagement over equity and social justice. Students from
disadvantaged backgrounds are the most vulnerable to globalisation as they are
less likely to achieve academically or go on to benefit from the restructured
neoliberal economy. School education policy would need to continue to sup-
port the right of each individual to be prepared for life in general, and employ-
ment in particular. Opportunities for democratic pedagogy, curriculum and
education policy to respond to risk, hereafter widened in relative terms to the
need for ongoing equity and social justice in education systems.
The relationship between globalising and internationalising school educa-
tion became obvious with the mushrooming growth of international schools,
colleges and schools, and colleges offering IB programs. With the onset of
globalism, international students became a common feature in schools and col-
leges across the three countries under consideration in this book. Collectively,
this required fresh approaches to risk society thinking in terms of school edu-
cational policies.
As the face of schools and colleges were changing, so, too, the face of the
nation’s workforce: for example, manufacturing jobs were drifting – sometimes,
stampeding – to Asia and South East Asia. In their place were new export
dollars expressed in fee-paying international students. Added to this has been
increased immigration at vast rates, often from Muslim countries. This new
order brought with it new challenges and imperatives for risk society in respect
to school educational policy.
As all of this was occurring, the policies and politics of school education
retention, or graduation rates along with the question of school education start-
ing age became new imperatives for governments and educational authori-
ties. International comparisons in these respects insured constant government
surveillance.
A stark and highly exceptional response to challenges of risk society and
school education was the Australian BER national building strategy used as a
tool for the management of economic crises. In response to school educational
policy and risk society theory, this response remains largely unexplored by
educational policy researchers.

References
Ainley, J., Malley, J. & Lamb, S. (1997). Thematic review of the transition from initial education
to working life. Australian Council for Educational Research. OECD. Retrieved 20 April 2017
from [Link]/australia/[Link] .
134 National governments respond
Anderson, B. (1996). Imagined communities: reflections on the origins of the spread of nationalism.
(7th ed.). London/New York: Verso.
Aspinall, R.W. (2014). Education and risk: The application of risk society theory to the
study of education systems in Europe, America and Asia. Discussion Paper No. A-11.
(July). Center for Risk Research, Faculty of Economics, Shiga University.
Asthana, A. & Walker, P. (2016). Casey review raises alarm over social integration in the
UK. The Guardian (5 December). Retrieved 7 March 2018 from [Link]/
world/2016/dec/04/social-integration-louise-casey-uk-report-condemns-failings.
Asthana, A. & Walker, P. (2016). Casey review raises alarm over social integration in the
UK. The Guardian (5 December). Retrieved 7 March 2018 from [Link]/
world/2016/dec/04/social-integration-louise-casey-uk-report-condemns-failings.
Australian Embassy, China (n.d.). Retrieved 24 September 2014 from [Link].
[Link]/bjng/[Link].
Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: what does it mean? where does it get us? Discourse:
studies in the cultural politics of education. 21(1). pp. 45–57.
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., Bonss, W. & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic,
hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society. 20(2). pp. 1–33.
Berliner, D. & Biddle, B. (1996). The manufactured crisis: myths, fraud, and the attack on Amer-
ica’s public schools, New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Boudia, S. & Jas, N. (2007). Introduction: Risk and “risk society” in historical perspective.
History and Technology. 23(4). (December), pp. 317–331.
Building the Education Revolution-Primary Schools for the 21st Century (2010). ANAO
(5 May). Retrieved 30 January 2017 from [Link]/work/performance-audit/
building-education-revolution-primary-schools-21st-century.
Bulman, M. (2017). Hate crimes almost doubled in schools during Brexit campaign period,
figures reveal, The Independent (5 May). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]
[Link]/news/uk/home-news/hate-incidents-crimes-schools-89-brexit-campaign-
[Link].
Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Cobain, I. (2016). UK’s Prevent counter-radicalisation policy “badly flawed”. The Guard-
ian (19 October). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]/uk-news/2016/
oct/19/uks-prevent-counter-radicalisation-policy-badly-flawed.
Cobb-Clark, D. & Connolly, M.D. (1997). The Worldwide Market for Skilled Migrants:
Can Australia Compete? The International Migration Review. 31(3) (Autumn), pp. 670–693.
Commonwealth of Australia (1997). House of Representatives, Hansards, No. 212, 1997,
5 March. Retrieved 23 May 2015 from .[Link]
chamber/hansardr/1997-03-05/toc_pdf/H%[Link];fileType=application/
pdf#search=%221990s%22.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (n.d.). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]/
government/collections/counter-terrorism-and-security-bill.
Data Editor (2015). U.S. education: still separate and unequal: The data show schools are still
separate and unequal. US News (28 January). Retrieved 20 October 2016 from [Link].
com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Strengthening Australia’s schools: a consideration of the focus and content of
schooling, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Dawkins, J. & A. C. Holding (1987). Skills for Australia, Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
 National governments respond 135
Donnelly, K. (2005). Benchmarking Australian primary school curricula. Canberra: Department
of Education, Science and Training.
Donnelly, K. (2007). Dumbing down: outcomes-based and politically correct: the impact of the culture
wars on our schools. Melbourne: Hardie Grant.
Elahai, F. & Kahn, O. (2017). Introduction: What is Islamophobia, in F. Elahai & O. Kahn
(Eds). Islamophobia: still a challenge to us all (a 20th anniversary report), London: Run-
nymede, pp. 5–13. Retrieved 5 March 2018 from [Link]/sites/
default/files/Runnymede%20Islamophobia%20Report%[Link].
Eroding Trust: The UK’s Prevent Counter-Extremism Strategy in Health and Educa-
tion (2016). Open Society Foundations (October). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from www.
[Link]/reports/eroding-trust-uk-s-prevent-counter-extremism-
strategy-health-and-education.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Franklin, M. (2010). Julia Gillard says schools building program saved nation from recession.
The Australian (25 March). Retrieved 30 January 2017 from [Link]/
archive/politics/julia-gillard-says-ber-saved-nation-from-recession/news-story/76e5847
a84891e6c70ca38bbf4e8957f .
Glenunga International High School (GIHS) (n.d.). Retrieved 12 October 2014 from www.
[Link]/.
Harrison, D. (2010). Audit slams Rudd’s primary school building program, Sydney Morning
Herald (5 May) [Link]/national/audit-slams-rudds-primary-school-building-
[Link]. (retrieved 25 October 2014).
Havergal, C. (2016). Six per cent of young first degree entrants fail to advance to second
year, Hesa data show. Times Higher Education (23 March). Retrieved 20 October 2016 from
[Link]/news/rise-uk-university-dropout-rate-disappointing.
Hussain, S. (2008). Muslims on the map: A national survey of social trends in Britain. London:
I. B. Tauris.
Jarvis, D.S.L. (2007). Theorizing Risk: Ulrich Beck, globalization and the rise of the risk
society. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore. Retrieved 7 September 2017
from [Link]/downloadpub/risk_RR3_u_Beck.pdf.
Jeory, T. (2016). UK entering “unchartered territory” of Islamophobia after Brexit vote.
Independent (28 June). Retrieved 5 August 2016 from [Link]/news/
uk/home-news/brexit-muslim-racism-hate-crime-islamophobia-eu-referendum-leave-
[Link].
Kayrooz, C. & Parker, S. (2010). The education revolutionary road: paved with good inten-
tions. In C. Aulich & M. Evans (Eds) The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth
administration 2007–2010, Canberra: ANU-Epress, pp. 78–123. Retrieved 23 Novem-
ber 2014 from [Link]
nt%3A+Australian+Commonwealth+Administration+%092007+-+2010/5091/ch09.
xhtml#toc-anchor.
Khoo, K. (2016). The formal school starting age: is younger better? (2016). News,
9/27/2016 | Embassy of Finland, Canberra. Retrieved 19 October 2016 from www.
[Link]/public/[Link]?contentid=352025&nodeid=35603&culture=en-US.
Knight, P.T. (2001). Complexity and curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making.
Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), pp. 369–381.
Koulish, R. (2016). Sovereign bias, crimmigration, and risk. In M.J. Guia, R. Koulish. & V.
Mitsilegas (Eds). Immigration detention, risk and human rights: studies on immigration and crime.
Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 187–213.
136 National governments respond
Lewis, C., Dollery, B. & Kortt, M.A. (2014). Building the Education Revolution: another
case of Australian Government failure? International Journal of Public Administration, 37(5).
Retrieved 30 January 2017 from [Link]/doi/abs/10.1080/01900692.20
13.836660.
Loveys, K. (2011). Britain’s Neets shame: new study reveals UK has one of worst dropout
rates in developing world. Daily Mail (11 September). Retrieved 20 October 2016 from
[Link]/news/article-2036973/UK-school-dropout-rate-worst-developing-
[Link].
Lubkemann, S.C. (2010). Refugees and forced migrants. In World at Risk: A global issues
sourcebook (2nd ed.) Washington, DC, CQ Press, pp. 48–72.
Maadad, N. & Rodwell, G. (2016). Schooling and education in Lebanon, New York: Peter
Lang.
Marcus, A. (2016). Australians more alarmed about state of politics than impact of migration
and minorities, survey finds. The Conversation (22 November). Retrieved 20 April 2017
from [Link]
than-impact-of-migration-and-minorities-survey-finds-69103.
Marginson, S. (1997a). Educating Australia: government, economy and citizen since 1960, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marginson, S. (1997b). Markets in education. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Matten, D. (2004). The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and man-
agement in a globalizing economy: principles, proficiency, perspectives. Journal of Risk
Research (June) 7 (4). pp. 377–398.
Metherell, L. (2010). Stimulus “served Australia well” despite waste. ABC News (6 August).
Retrieved 30 January from [Link]/news/2010-08-06/stimulus-served-australia-
well-despite-waste/935002.
Miah, S. (2017). Muslims, schooling and security: Trojan horse, Prevent and racial politics. London:
Palgrave.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2016). The Casey Review: a
review into opportunity and integration: An independent review by Dame Louise Casey
into opportunity and integration. (5 December). Retrieved 25 June 2018 from
[Link]
opportunity-and-integration.
Munro, K. (2016). Start school or stay and play: delayed school starts on the rise. Syd-
ney Morning Herald (22 May). Retrieved 20 October 2016 from [Link]/
national/education/start-school-or-stay-and-play-delayed-school-starts-on-the-rise-
[Link].
Newton, C. (2017). Building the education revolution: A revolution or a missed opportu-
nity?’ PhD thesis, University of South Australia.
O’Donoghue, T. (2017). Understanding contemporary education: key themes and issues. New
York/London: Routledge.
Orbach, S. (1998). People in distress. In J. Franklin (Ed.) (1998). The politics of risk society.
Institute for Public Policy Research (London, England). London: Polity Press, pp. 67–98.
Osborne, P. (2018). Trojan Horse affair: When government and media colluded to vilify the
Muslim community. Middle East Eye. (28 February). Retrieved 6 March 2018 from r40m
[Link]/columns/investigation-trojan-horse-plot-urgently-needed-
1374680665.
Poynting, S. & Mason, V. (2007). The resistible rise of Islamophobia: anti-Muslim racism
in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001. Journal of Sociology. 43, pp. 61–86.
 National governments respond 137
Public high school graduation rates (2016). National Centre for Education Statistics (May).
Retrieved 20 October 2016 from [Link]
Qurashi, F. (2016). Prevent gives people permission to hate Muslims – it has no place in
schools, The Guardian (4 April). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]/
commentisfree/2016/apr/04/prevent-hate-muslims-schools-terrorism-teachers-reject.
Rahman, L. (2013). Tory press plays Islamophobic “dog whistle”, Huffington Post (15 Octo-
ber 2013). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]/lutfur-rahman/
islamophobia-tory-press_b_4093858.html.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Moral panics and school educational policy. New York/London: Routledge.
Ryan, S. & Bramston, T. (eds) (2003). The Hawke Government: a critical retrospective, North
Melbourne: Pluto Press.
Sahlberg, P. (2004). Teaching and globalization. Managing Global Transitions. 2(1). pp. 66–83.
Schnepe, S.V. (2006). How different are immigrants? A cross-country and cross-survey anal-
ysis of educational achievement. In C.A. Parsons & T.M. Smeeding, Immigration and the
transformation of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–234.
Shackle, S. (2017). Trojan Horse: the real story behind the “Islamic plot”to take over schools. The
Guardian. (1 September). Retrieved 6 March 2018 from [Link]/world/2017/
sep/01/trojan-horse-the-real-story-behind-the-fake-islamic-plot-to-take-over-schools.
Sippitt, A. (2015). What is the impact of immigration on school places? FullFact (24 April).
Retrieved 10 October 2016 from [Link]
school-places/.
UK schools to question Muslim girls wearing headscarf (2017). Daily Sabah, Islamopho-
bia (20 November). Retrieved 8 March 2018 from [Link]/islamophobia/
2017/11/20/uk-schools-to-question-muslim-girls-wearing-headscarf.
van Onselen, L. (2016). Judith Sloan: Cut immigration now. Macrobusiness (24 October).
Retrieved 22 April 2017 from [Link]/2016/10/judith-sloan-
cut-immigration-now/.
What is Prevent (n.d.). Let’s Talk About It: Working Together to Prevent Terrorism. Retrieved
8 March 2018 from [Link]/what-is-prevent/.
Williams, R. (2010). UK’s graduation rates fall to below average – OECD. The Guardian
(7 September). Retrieved 20 October 2016 from [Link]/education/
2010/sep/07/education-graduation-oecd-university.
Zajda, J. (2015). Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. In J. Zajda (Ed.)
Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
pp. 105–126.
6 National standardised testing
and reporting

Introduction
While many teachers, some school educational administrators and commu-
nity members question mandatory national standardised testing and reporting,
often there is a gulf between what they perceive as being sound educational
practice in the interests of their students and what politicians seek from school
education in the national interest in what they perceive to be society faced by
multiple and unpredictable risks. Now, in response to risk society, schools and
colleges are focal points for the surveillance nation.
There is a growing international infatuation with national standardised test-
ing and reporting, with accompaning school educational policy responding to
perceived risk society imperatives. Some commentators might argue there is
nothing new in this. American, British and Australian school educational his-
tory illustrates a periodic obsession with standardised testing of school students
dating back to the World War I. But, of course, then its purpose differed from
the risk-society inspired policies, wherein globalism has been a dominant force,
and which are under examination in this book. Risk-society inspired national
standardised testing policies have even reached into readiness assessments for
Kindergarten and Year 1 students.

School education students first experience national

standardised testing
In our Introduction to this book, I referred to Moran’s [2015] chapter in
Bialostok, Whitman and Bradley’s pioneering collection of essays on risk soci-
ety and school education. The chapter is primarily about “the strange career of
scientific management in American education, 1890–2010”, but it also is about
“efficiency, standardization and mitigating risk”, central attributes of national
standardised testing and reporting.
In its beginning, scientific management was a central part of progressivism.
Taylorism, or scientific management, was all about a zealous quest for effi-
ciency in business and industry, and through the emerging standardised test-
ing movement immediately following the World War I, schools were quickly
brought into this mix. But, first, a word of caution.
 National standardised testing and reporting 139
Beginning in the 1960s, revisionist, or neo-Marxist historians, or social
control historians postulated a powerful alternative account of American,
British and Australian educational history. They were inspired by American
histories such as Cremin’s [1964] Transformation of progressivism, Katz’s [1971]
Class, bureaucracy and the school and Bowles and Gintis’ [1976] Schooling in capi-
talist America. Additionally, Miller’s Long division [1986] is an extremely well
researched and convincingly articulated example of the social control school of
educational history in the Australian history of education.
For these historians, schooling is not a progressive gain, but rather a means
by which the masses are maintained in a form of social control in order to serve
the ends of the political elite – the bourgeois, or capitalist ruling class. Indeed,
class and class control are at the centre of their thesis. These historians wrote
from the perspective of the working class. Miller [1986, 1] begins her history
with the sentence: “One ordinary day in 1875, South Australia’s children sud-
denly discovered school attendance had become compulsory”. Here, the reader
immediately engages with the lot of South Australian working class children.
Social control historians are concerned with an analysis of the processes of
decision-making in education. They seek to examine the level and kinds of
decisions, their location within the educational machine, the participants in the
process and the nature of the mechanism, affecting the daily lives of all chil-
dren, for the better or the worse. For the social control historians, the essential
purpose of popular education is to control the masses, and at the same time,
to provide a control more complete and effective than ignorance and illiteracy
and, consequently, more useful to the bourgeois state. Here, refinements and
extensions of the school system, such as system-wide national assessment and
reporting, are viewed as simply improvements in the mechanisms of control.
Consequently, social control historians postulate schools as being essentially
institutions of training, socialisation and indoctrination, where children acquire
proper personal and social habits. Children learn the “truths” that justify hab-
its and virtues, rendering articulate the concepts of the popular mind. Stan-
dardised testing and reporting are vital agents of social control.
As often discussed in this book, the word “reform” can mean different things
to different people. As with the word “change”, it clearly connotes the intention
to improve, upgrade, or widen children’s educational experiences. The possibility
that good intentions can lead to unintended consequences is the central theme in
such works as Katz [1971], and particularly Cremin [1964] who sought an even
broader exploration of change, that is, as “transformation” of the school.
With the common goal of “efficiency” – a term, perhaps as slippery as
“progress” – during the early decades of the 20th century, across America,
Britain and Australia, school education was certainly transformed. The US
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment [1992, 110] explained the impact
of this quest for national testing thus:

mirroring the structural changes occurring in businesses and other American

institutions, school systems reorganized around the prevailing principles of effi-
cient management: consolidation of small schools and districts, classification of
140 National standardised testing and reporting
students, bureaucratization of administrative responsibilities. Within these new
arrangements, tests were viewed as an important efficiency tool.

Moreover,

by the end of World War I, standardized achievement tests were available

in a variety of basic subjects, and the possibilities for large-scale group
testing had been demonstrated. The results of these tests gave reformers
(including college presidents) ammunition in their push for improvements
in educational quality.
. . . the implementation of mass testing in World War I ushered in a new
era of educational testing as well.
[The U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: 1992, 110]

All of the above was done in the name of national efficiency. Let us now turn
our attention to the impact on national testing through globalism and risk soci-
ety which occurred a century or so later.

A growing international infatuation with national

standardised testing and reporting
“Critical to educational developments in many countries in recent years”,
wrote O’Donoghue [2017, 219], “has been the measuring and auditing of edu-
cational practices and relationships, with a major focus on human capital agen-
das that link education to international economic competitiveness”. Of course,
this present book has noted principally in Chapter 2 how these developments
are connected to risk society imperatives and the drive towards national surveil-
lance techniques as described, for example, by Rose [2009].
On the eve of Australia’s entry into national standardised testing and report-
ing through its NAPLAN and MySchool program, the level of concern by some
educational authorities in some countries prompted international research on
the educational benefits and risks of these developments. For example, Shiel,
Kellaghan, & Moran [2010] at the Educational Research Centre, St Patrick’s
College, Dublin undertook research on behalf of Ireland’s National Coun-
cil for Curriculum and Assessment. Beginning with the premise, “the use of
standardised tests has for many years been a topic of controversy, particularly in
the United States”, they sent out a questionnaire to a number of countries and
responses were returned from Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, the Nether-
lands and New Zealand [Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran: 2010, 52].
The researchers outlined a variety of advantages attributed to the practice of
national standardised testing:

• First, tests provide more objective and reliable information than the impres-
sionistic measurement of student learning which is subject to a variety of
biases.
 National standardised testing and reporting 141
• Secondly, tests can identify important curriculum objectives which teach-
ers can use as instructional targets.
• Thirdly, tests provide teachers with information on how their students’
achievements compare with those of students in other schools.
• Fourthly, tests can provide more detailed and systematic information on
students’ strengths and weaknesses, errors and misunderstandings, than a
teacher is likely to be able to do for all students in his/her class.
• Fifthly, information based on test performance, when given to students
and parents, is a potential source of motivation and accountability.
[Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran: 2010, 52]

Set against these advantages, however, for the researchers were a number of
disadvantages, wherein criticism has come strongly:

• First, most tests do not provide information on what a student has learned,
only how he/she stands relative to other students.
• Secondly, tests put pressure on teachers to teach to the test, leading to a
narrowing of the curriculum.
• Thirdly, tests encourage a competitive atmosphere in the classroom.
• Fourthly, when standardised test results are used to select and classify stu-
dents, they lead to labelling, which, in turn may be associated with the
perpetuation of distinctions based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status.
[Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran: 2010, 52]

Particularly, the researchers concluded: “Even when not consciously used to

classify students . . . test information can influence teachers’ expectations”
[Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran: 2010, 52].
The latter research certainly accords with research by Kincheloe [2012, 43]
who has stated “the top-down technical standards of the contemporary reform
movements are so specific in their prescribed list of ‘facts’ to be covered that
the best teachers are handcuffed in their efforts to teach complex concepts and
connect them to the lived experience of students”. Of course, had Kinche-
loe [2012] used a CDA analysis, he may have had more to say concerning
the political language or “reform” and the use of such words. That aside,
the point made by Kincheloe [2012, 43] and Shiel, Kellaghan and Moran
[2010, 52] underscored the view that as if often the case with school edu-
cational policies developed as a response to risk society imperatives, a heavy
price is paid in respect to students’ learning, as it becomes subordinated to
national requirements.
Further, Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran [2010, 52–55] in the countries
they surveyed found medium-to-strong support amongst teachers for the
following:

• Testing limits teaching, putting pressure on teachers to teach to the test,

thus leading to a narrowing of the curriculum
142 National standardised testing and reporting
• Tests lead to labelling students Further, teachers form expectations for stu-
dents on the basis of test scores and students conforming to these expecta-
tions can lower student achievement
• Testing leads to rigid grouping practices either at school or class level
• Testing increases fear, anxiety, and competitiveness among students
• Testing may damage a student’s self-concept
• Test scores have no direct positive usefulness in guiding instruction.

Their research concluded that with low-stakes testing “attached to perfor-

mance, as when tests were administered as a component of normal classroom
procedures and the information they yielded was entirely under the control of
the teacher, the information did not have a negative impact on what teachers
taught or on how they organised their classrooms”. However, “when high-
stakes are attached to test performance, the impact is likely to be much stron-
ger” [Shiel, Kellaghan, & Moran: 2010, 61–62].

The developing vexed issues of PISA

Miller [2008, 263] showed how recent Foucauldian insights on governmental-
ity also illustrates the emerging role of the “risk manager”, in terms of the “risk
gaze”, mapping the “distribution of risk over the social terrain” and produc-
ing “a version of the state as a facilitator of risk management, rather than a
provider of welfare” [Rose: 2009, as cited in Miller: 2008, 263]. Here, Miller
[2008, 263] cited research by Rose [2009] who postulates a new version of the
citizen, not connected to the state in traditional ways, but through “circuits of
consumption”, “(credit cards, passports, driver’s licences, mortgages, and the
like) that are open only to those people who are able to take responsibility for
managing risks to their own health and personal financial safety” [Miller: 2008,
263]. We may add enrolment data, school fees and national and international
standardised test results to this list, as being an indicator of “responsible” citi-
zens who the “risk managers” can include in their “risk gaze”. Of course, this
has its parallels in school educational policy in the shift from the social justice
driven policies of the 1960s, the 1970s and the early 1980s to the risk society
imperative-driven policies of the 21st century, mentioned earlier in the section.
Rose [2009, 323] explained: Government policy bureaucrats:

have charted the assembly of complex and hybrid technologies of govern-

ment, linking together forms of judgement, modes of perception, practices
of calculation, types of authority, architectural forms, machinery and all
manner of technological devices with the aspiration of producing certain
outcomes in terms of the conduct of the governed – the technologies we
have come to know as the social insurance system, the schooling system,
the penal system and so forth . . . .
In focussing on practices of government, such analyses have reframed
the role to be accorded to “the state” in analysis and regulation. Centres
 National standardised testing and reporting 143
of political deliberation and calculation have to act through a whole range
of other authorities, and through complex technologies, if they are to be
able to intervene on the conduct of persons, activities, spaces and objects
far flung in space and time – in the street, the schoolroom, the home, the
operating theatre, the prison cell.

Consequently, greater light is shed on the multitude of ways in which govern-

ments regulate school education in the interests of risk society imperatives:
witness, for example, such programs as PISA benchmarks. These are views
endorsed by Haggerty and Ericson [2005, 7–19], who inter alia, described the
enormous impact of “stakeholder politics” in a nation states obsessed with risk
society inspired policies and practices. This has resulted in massive changes in
the control of national school education. “Corporatization of global education
shifts part of the control from national school systems to international pub-
lishing, testing, technology, and software corporations” [Spring: 2015, 124].
Perhaps, not surprisingly then, there is a growing criticism of the way in which
the PISA data is gathered in classrooms.
Referring to Australian 2017 PISA data, Reid [2017, n.p.] wrote: “As these
OECD test results inform our policy makers and contribute to the growing belief
in our community that our education system is in crisis, I believe the methods
used to derive the information should be scrutinised carefully”. Indeed, for Reid
[2017, n.p.], “over the past few years, many researchers have raised questions
about whether the PISA tests really do tell us much about education standards”.
Reid [2017] was concerned about the flurry of media comments concerning the
Australian PISA results brought with them a plethora of moral panic concerning
discipline in Australian schools. He sought to examine “the efficacy of some of
the research connected to the PISA tests, specifically that relating to classroom
discipline, and examine the way our media handled the information that was
released” [Reid: 2017, n.p.]. He questioned very rigorously the efficacy of “the
testing is done and how classroom discipline was included in the latest results”
[Reid: 2017, n.p.]. Of course, the moral panic to which Reid [2017] referred
only increased risk society responses at a policy level.
How are these findings mirrored in the US, UK and Australia?

National standardised testing and reporting in the US

By 2015, some commentators were warning standardised testing was claim-
ing “plague proportions” in American schools, “requiring too many tests of
dubious value, according to the first comprehensive survey of the nation’s larg-
est districts” [Layton: 2015, n.p.]. Indeed, “a new Council of the Great City
Schools study [had] found . . . the typical student takes 112 mandated stan-
dardized tests between pre-kindergarten classes and 12th grade”. It was further
claimed: “By contrast, most countries that outperform the United States on
international exams test students three times during their school careers” [Lay-
ton: 2015, n.p.].
144 National standardised testing and reporting
Responding through a Facebook video, President Obama pledged to allevi-
ate this perceived problem interfering with students’ learning, particularly in
the manner in which this “testing overload” skewed classroom teaching “to
teach to a test that it takes the joy out of teaching and learning, both for them
and for the students” [Layton: 2015, n.p.].
The US Department of Education would intervene, offering “a mea culpa
of sorts”, embodying an “‘action plan’ to states and local districts” spelling out
“ways to reduce redundant and low-quality testing. The department pledged
to make money and staff available to help and promised to amend some of its
policies” [Layton: 2015, n.p.].
Perhaps not surprisingly, educational researchers have been drawn to per-
ceived national and threatening problems or risks. For some researchers it was
all about perceived risks to national economic growth: for example, Carnoy
and Rothstein [2015] claimed there was excessive standardised testing in US
schools. Indeed, for these researchers “average national scores on a single test in
a single year are inaccurate guides to educational policy. They hide differences
in the social class composition of national samples and differences in how disad-
vantaged and advantaged students in each country perform over time” [Carnoy &
Rothstein: 2015, 122].
Further, in a federal system such as the US, “where states are in charge of
educational systems, performance by students of similar social class background
on international tests varies greatly among states” [Carnoy & Rothstein: 2015,
122]. For Carnoy and Rothstein [2015, 122], an examination of international
test results showed the US “relative performance would seem to be better
if . . . social class composition were similar to that of comparison nations”.
Indeed, often it was a case of comparing oranges with bananas. “Disadvantaged
students in the US have been making more rapid gains than disadvantaged
students in nations with higher score levels” [Carnoy & Rothstein: 2015, 122].
The authors warned against policy makers using national test scores without
digging deeply into the many issues associated with these.

National standardised testing and reporting in the UK

For research conducted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the
Eurydice Network, the National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) explained: “There is an extensive structure of formal student assess-
ment in England, Wales and Northern Ireland” [Eurydice at NFER: n.d.,
n.p.]. Although the structures in each of these countries were similar when
they were initially introduced during the late 1980s, they increasingly
diverged during the following decade. The Eurydice Network is the Educa-
tion Information Network in Europe and consists of a coordinating Euro-
pean Unit and a series of national units; its aim is to provide policy makers
in the member states of the European Union with up-to-date and reliable
information on which to base policy decisions in an increasingly challenged
educational policy field.
 National standardised testing and reporting 145
Although concentrating on national standardised tests, it placed these within
the different arrangements for statutory assessment (which may include teacher
assessment alongside formal tests) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
[Eurydice at NFER: n.d., n.p.].
Here, all students in key stages 1, 2 and 3 (age 8, 11 and 14) must participate
in the statutory assessment program. “Attainment targets define the expected
standards of student performance in particular aspects of a subject in terms of
level descriptions” [Eurydice at NFER, n.d., n.p.]. Moreover, “these provide
the basis for making judgements on students’ attainment at the end of each key
stage. There are eight level descriptions for each attainment target indicating
the type and range of attainment that a student working at that level should
typically demonstrate” [Eurydice at NFER: n.d., n.p.]. Teachers have an input
into the assessment process, by selecting the level description that best fits a
student’s performance over time. At the end of key stage 1 (age 8 in Northern
Ireland), educational authorities expect the majority of students will be work-
ing at level 2; at the end of key stage 2, it is expected that the majority will be
working at either level 3 or 4 [Eurydice at NFER: n.d., n.p.].

National standardised testing and reporting in Australia

In Australia, the federally funded and administered ACER performs a similar role
to the NFER in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the usual “go-to”
organisation for the Commonwealth in seeking research in education. Draw-
ing on ACER research, in a position paper for the Australian Parliament, Har-
rington [n.d., n.p.] contended, sometime and most probably, in 2014: “Evidence
of declining literacy and numeracy achievements of Australian school students is
a major driver of the policy imperative to improve the performance of schools”.
Research by the ACER “showed an overall decline in the reading and math-
ematics levels of 15-year-olds since 2000” [Harrington: n.d., n.p.]. Moreover,
“the growth in the impact of socioeconomic background on student perfor-
mance is also a major concern, with disadvantaged students more likely to
underperform. Further, the period since 2000 has seen other countries sur-
pass Australia in international surveys of student attainment” [Harrington: n.d.,
n.p.]. There were clear imperatives to risk society thinking here in school edu-
cational policy. Most alarmingly for governments and educational authorities,
“these developments have occurred at the same time as expenditure on school
education has grown significantly and a raft of education reforms and initia-
tives has been introduced by Australian governments” [Harrington: n.d., n.p.].
Indeed, during the first decade of the 21st century, “more funding, improving
teacher quality, greater school autonomy and national testing and reporting
are among the suite of reforms that governments have introduced to improve
school and student performance” [Harrington: n.d., n.p.]. Governments and
educational policy bureaucrats were left scratching their heads. Harrington
[n.d., n.p.] responded: “While there is evidence to support these strategies,
there is also research that questions their efficacy”.
146 National standardised testing and reporting
A new player in Australian school educational administration, however,
reckoned he had the answer. This was Mark Scott, previously a secondary
teacher in an elite Sydney school, and just out of his past role as head of the
Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), and now 12 months into his
new role as head of the NSW Department of Education and Communities,
argued first:

schools should not be looking to the past. On the contrary . . . they have
some catching up to do. Educators should learn from medicine, where
reams of statistical data on drugs and other treatments have given doctors a
clear guide on how to treat many hitherto untreatable conditions.
[Dodd: 2017, n.p.]

Indeed, for Scott the quandary facing governments and school educational
authorities in the face of risk society imperatives, and as expressed above by
Harrington [n.d.], the answer lay in what was occurring in medical research:

“I’m glad we don’t have a back-to-basics view in medicine”, he [Scott]

[said] emphatically. “In medicine there’s a desperate pursuit of research.
What the data shows; what experiments are giving us breakthroughs; and
let’s use the latest and the best information to drive performance. That’s
what we need in education as well”.
[Dodd: 2017, n.p.]

Dodd [2017, n.p.] reported Scott as heading up “one of the largest school
systems in the world. New York’s is bigger; but not much else”. Here, there is
a distinct symmetry with the progressives’ responses to perceived national inef-
ficiency a century earlier.

Responding to national standardised testing regimes

Visiting schools, talking with teachers, students and parents, anecdotal evi-
dence suggests the highly nuanced impact of high-stakes testing on school edu-
cation. Early in 2016, I was visiting a young family in Newcastle, Australia and
spoke with the parents of 4-year-old twins who were due to commence school
the following year. The parents had spent hours interrogating the MySchool
website, and looking at looking to NAPLAN scores of the various school in
their district, indicating these scores are marketing devices.
An index to the degree of public interest is the level the national media con-
tributes to the discourse. For example, in February 2015 the New York Times
through its Opinion columns published an array of correspondence on the
topic. For example, one was from Michael V. McGill, director of the district
leadership and reform program at Bank Street College of Education and for-
mer superintendent of schools in Scarsdale, N.Y., who wrote of the intrusive-
ness and the vagaries of system-wide standardised testing:
 National standardised testing and reporting 147
Districts, schools and teachers all have a responsibility to measure students’
learning frequently – far more often than once a year – in order to help
them grow. Standardized tests are among the measures they use. But the
same ones aren’t equally useful or necessary in every school or district; dif-
ferent measures can provide different kinds of information, offering more
or less insight into the needs of a particular student or group of children.
Information about student progress, including test results, should be
readily available to parents and communities. Federal and state testing
can be significantly less invasive than it is and still provide accountability.
There’s no reason to require that all children in a state take the same stan-
dardized exams every year.
[How Useful Are Standardised Tests?: 2015, n.p.]

A cursory Google of national print media in the US, UK and Australia will
testify to a stream of articles and opinion pieces on system-wide school educa-
tion standardised testing from various perspectives.
With nationwide high-stakes standardised testing a mere 3 years old in
Australia, the left-wing Whitlam Institute published a literature review of the
international research on the topic from multiple perspectives. One perspective
was that of teacher and pedagogy. The literature review showed how in a sum-
mary of the research into the negative effects of high-stakes testing on peda-
gogy, Lobascher [2011, 15–16] cited an assortment of research supporting the
view that testing detracted from the creativity of teachers, and at the same time
removed the intrinsic motivation of love of learning in students. Instead, came
extrinsic rewards and threats reduced enjoyment of the teaching and learning
experience [Anagnostopoulos: 2003; Au: 2007; Jones: 2007; QSA: 2009; Wil-
liams: 2009, all cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 11].
Notwithstanding the many claims to the contrary, likewise Lingard [2009]
expressed concern that in Australia NAPLAN indeed has become “high stakes”
with predictable negative impacts including teacher frustration and irritation
at constraints on their opportunities to practice authentic pedagogies, accom-
panied by an undermining of their sense of professional worth. Citing the
example of England, Lingard [2009, 16, 11, cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 11]
decried a “culture of performativity” affecting “the very souls of teachers”.
Anecdotal evidence derived from visiting schools and talking with members
of the school community also attests to the impact of high-stakes testing on the
curriculum. Again, there is ample evidence from the media across the US, UK
and Australia to support this, and at times reaching out to the highest levels of
government. Zernike [2015, n.p.] wrote in the New York Times how:

Faced with mounting and bipartisan opposition to increased and often

high-stakes testing in the nation’s public schools, the Obama administra-
tion declared . . . that the push had gone too far, acknowledged its own
role in the proliferation of tests, and urged schools to step back and make
exams less onerous and more purposeful.
148 National standardised testing and reporting
Specifically, the Obama administration called for: “A cap on assessment so
that no child would spend more than 2 per cent of classroom instruction time
taking tests”, and for “Congress to ‘reduce over-testing’ as it reauthorizes the
federal legislation governing the nation’s public elementary and secondary
schools” [Zernike: 2015, n.p.].
International research was showing the negative affects to the curriculum
of school education brought on by excessive attention to high-stakes testing.
The well-established benefits of a broad curriculum encouraging creativity,
problem-solving, the development of contemporary skills, and providing for
physical activity and engaged learning have been well demonstrated [Ravitch:
2010, cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 11].
Responding to political pressures from a macro-level in the form of school
authorities, and at this level, teachers are drawn to preparing their students for
the high-stakes testing. A common finding in the research literature is that
teachers focus on the areas in which students will be tested, while reducing
the proportion of class time devoted to curriculum areas not included in
state tests. In the US, David [2011, cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] spawned
by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) found the high-stakes testing programs
resulted in drastic changes to the proportions of time allocated to different sub-
ject areas. Teachers taught the curriculum content areas – usually literacy- and
numeracy-based – with the content of the tests largely determining the basis
of the curriculum. This was especially in those schools identified as being low-
performing, with school authorities taking “a special interest in these schools.
This was particularly in the US, where the social sciences, science, arts and
physical education experienced reductions in the time allocated to them as a
result of the demands of high-stakes testing programs”. Madaus et al. [2009,
cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] provided similar evidence of neglect of non-
tested subjects, but in addition they found that even recess periods may be
abridged to accommodate preparation for the tests. Reay and William [1999,
cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] noted similar concerns regarding the narrow-
ness of the curriculum among children participating in a study in the UK.
Moreover, in his research in Chicago public schools, Jacob [2002, 10]
demonstrated any gains in standardised testing scores “were driven largely by
increases in test-specific skills and student effort, and did not lead to compa-
rable gains on a state-administered, low-stakes exam”. He also found “teachers
responded strategically to the incentives along a variety of dimensions – by
increasing special education placements, pre-emptively retaining students and
substituting away from low-stakes subjects like science and social studies”. In
objecting to these developments, many stakeholders in school communities
soon gained media attention.
Often students, parents and carers are simply “collateral” damage as high-
stakes testing impacts school education. Harris [2015, n.p.] reported in the New
York Times how “a few hundred students will file into classrooms at Bloomfield
Middle School, open laptops and begin a new standardized test, one mandated
across New Jersey and several other states for the first time this year”. Indeed,
 National standardised testing and reporting 149
About a dozen of their classmates, however, will be elsewhere. They will
sit in a nearby art room, where they will read books, do a little drawing
and maybe paint.
What they will not do is take the test, because they and their parents
have flatly refused.
[Harris: 2015, n.p.]

This act of deviance was in response to “a new wave of standardized exams,

designed to assess whether students are learning in step with the Common
Core standards”. This testing regime was “sweeping the country, arriving . . .
in classrooms in several states and entering the cross hairs of various political
movements. In New Jersey and elsewhere, the arrival has been marked with
well-organized opposition, a spate of television attack ads and a cascade of
parental anxiety” [Harris: 2015, n.p.]
Reporting on the impact of one US testing regime (the North Carolina
ABC Program), Brown et al. [2004, cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] argued:
“Such positives as increased teacher accountability, greater parental involvement
and increased teaching consistency”, are counteracted by “negative effects on
service delivery and professional-parent relationships (at one level) and by the
stress, anxiety, pressure and level of fear experienced by students (at another)”.
The research showed children “feeling incompetent, or being labelled by their
teachers, to an increase in suspensions and problem behaviours, to test avoid-
ance and lowered student self-esteem and confidence”.
Moreover, in their US research Paris and McEvoy [2000, cited in Polesel,
et al: 2012, 13] described instances of children “freezing” with fear during tests
and experiencing anxiety or physical distress; Flores and Clark [2003, cited in
Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] cited instancesof emotional, psychological and physical
distress, including impact on self-esteem, inability to sleep, confusion, frustra-
tion, headaches and throwing up, while Emery and Ohanian [2004, cited in
Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] asked why educational authorities send children “to a
place that makes them vomit”, rather than one where they are nurtured. Again
in the US, Madaus et al. [2009, cited in Polesel, et al: 2012, 13] echoed these
findings in a study which found evidence of children’s exhaustion, frustration
and crying emerging as responses to the stress provoked by testing.

The national media and national standardised

testing: a brief survey
How is national standardised testing represented in national TV in the US,
the UK and Australia? Here our concern is to assess this in some rudimentary
comparative manner.
Of course, readers need to remind themselves that currently in the US there
is no national curriculum that each state follows as there is in the UK (England,
Wales and Northern Ireland) and Australia. As in Australia, in the US school
education is a state responsibility, with each state being required to develop
150 National standardised testing and reporting
its curriculum frameworks, standards, or grade span/level expectations. For
example, Rhode Island has K-12 continuums in Reading, Mathematics and
Written and Oral Communications. These continuums outline developmental
learning for that subject from kindergarten through grade 12. Thus, each state
has its own standards to which it can hold students attending its educational
institutes, and these standards many differ from those of other states across the
nation. While many states may have a similar curriculum outline, the fact that
curriculum is defined and created at a state level allows for many discrepan-
cies across the nation, and at the same time impeding any attempts at national
standardised assessment regimes [Linden: 2007, 2–3].
In the UK, issues surrounding national standardised testing feature more
prominently in national TV. For example, Scottish First Minister, Nicola
Sturgeon in detailing plans to introduce standardised school testing there was
considerable national discourse [e.g., BBC News: 2016; McIvor: 2015]. And
again, when Year 6 pupils across England were mandated new, “more rigorous,
national curriculum tests, known as Sats”, the BBC responded with a program
informing families of the changes [BBC News: Education & Family: 2016, n.p.].
At the same time, in Australia audiences were fed a feast of prime eve-
ning TV time on topics related to the nation’s standardised testing program,
NAPLAN and the website, MySchool. Readers could be excused for thinking
Australians followed the annual publication of NAPLAN results with an eager-
ness analogous to the approaching of Christmas or Ramadan. For example,
on the ABC’s The Drum, a current affairs half-hour panel national presenta-
tion, during a 2-year period Australian audiences were told on 5 August 2015
to “ignore the doubters, NAPLAN is important and it’s working” [Bucking-
ham: 2015]. A year later, with the publication of that year’s NAPLAN results,
ABC’s The Drum session of 3 August included a session on “who’s to blame
for the poor NAPLAN results?” [The Drum, Wednesday August 3: 2016]. On
13 December 2016, The Drum ran a session on “the latest report card from
NAPLAN . . . The national report on NAPLAN results released this week
shows Australian students’ performance in the past few years has flat-lined”
[The Drum, Tuesday December 13 2016. This was followed by a lengthy report
claiming “the national report on NAPLAN results released this week shows
Australian students’ performance in the past few years has flat-lined. Predict-
ably, it has caused a frisson of panic”. Moreover, “the results show it is time to
hand trust back to teachers” [Stroud: 2017, n.p.].
There is a suggestion that the annual publication of the results causes a panic
amongst interstate school educational authorities, and a keenly developing
rivalry not to be caught out with the poorest scores. For example, the publica-
tion of the 2017 NAPLAN results prompted an in-depth analysis from ABC
News, inter alia, claiming: “The latest NAPLAN results show students’ per-
formance has only improved marginally since the tests were first introduced
a decade ago” [Griffith: 2017, n.p]. Moreover, “reading and numeracy have
improved since 2008 but writing has declined since 2011, with Queensland
and Western Australia showing the most improvement since 2008” [Griffith:
 National standardised testing and reporting 151
2017, n.p]. And notably, the same report continued: “Concerns that students
could have improved more if tests were less stressful” [Griffith: 2017, n.p].
Griffith [2017, n.p.] reported Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham
as stating: “Reading and numeracy skills have improved, the writing results ‘are
of real concern’”. Later in 2017, a panel from The Drum discussed “the myth of
NAPLAN stress” [The Drum Friday September 15: 2017].
If the level of presentation on national TV is a guide, we may hypothesise
Australian discourse surrounding national standardised testing is filled with
more anxiety and is more concentrated than it is in either the US, with that
of the UK coming somewhere in between. Of course, the hypothesis requires
more rigorous testing than is provided here. As if a tragic risk society echo of
the national anxieties surrounding “illegal” boat people to Australian north-
ern shores, Australian national governments have adopted school educational
policies of national standardised testing to a degree greater than the other two
countries we have under consideration in this book.

Readiness assessments for kindergarten and

Year 1 students
In 2014 in the US, 26 states plus DC currently require KEAs (Kindergarten
Entrance Assessment), administered either by the state or locally, and three
states are in the process of developing entrance assessments; additionally, North
Dakota law allows districts to assess incoming kindergarten students, but the
assessment is optional, Wisconsin requires a literacy assessment only for all
students in 4-year-old kindergarten groups through to second grade. KEAs
are used to evaluate whether or not a student is prepared for the demands
of kindergarten. Assessments may include language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge, motor skills and social and emotional devel-
opment [Kindergarten Entrance Assessment: 2014]. Similar assessment tools
are available in Australian and UK schools, although not compulsory.
These developments in early childhood education in respect to risk society
theory also have parallels in Australian government initiatives in assessing read-
ing readiness for Year 1 students using phonic pedagogy. It was contended a
five-minute reading check for Year 1 students, including made-up words like
“beff ” and “shup” improve dramatically early literacy rates in the UK, and
would be adopted in Australia. Here, Minister Birmingham, endorsed new
research suggesting the UK’s Year 1 phonics screening check, at the same time
stating it would be rolled out across Australian Year 1 classrooms. This was a
part of the government’s back-to-basics approach to education, announced in
the May 2016 budget. Moreover, in order to counter any vagaries from the
states and territories in respect to federalism, the federal government threatened
to make state education funding contingent on state governments implement-
ing measures like the phonics check, after the current funding deal runs out
at the end of 2018. This policy was all about managing national risk, accord-
ing to Birmingham: “Performance is at best plateauing and the gap between
152 National standardised testing and reporting
the brightest students and those struggling is growing, various reports have
shown”. Moreover, he declared: “The nation can’t afford to wait any longer
to act on turning around declining education results” [Year 1 students to face
literacy and numeracy tests: 2017, n.p.].
Meanwhile, some visiting American educators and academics to Australia
are left scratching their heads and commenting on what the fuss and national
anxiety is all about, with one print media article claiming: “NAPLAN-style
testing and reporting has failed in the United States by narrowing the curricu-
lum and corrupting education standards, says a chief education adviser to the
US President, Barack Obama” [Patty: 2011, n.p.].
Again, taken as a whole the issues surrounding national standardised assess-
ment of students is another example of “reflexive democracy”. Despite its
developing economic strength and its multitude of technological advances, and
because of deeper problems with modernity, its system of government and
economy, there were perceptions Australia’s school education system was fail-
ing in the arena of international competitiveness.

Analysis and conclusions

However brief and cursory, a comparison between the drives to standardised
assessment at about the time of World War I and that which has occurred in the
face of risk society is the claim that when governments and school authorities
are faced with perceived severe national challenges such as the earlier percep-
tions of national inefficiency and the more recent risk society, school education
will be targeted for national standardised assessment.
There seems to be a clear gulf between government policies on mandatory
system-wide standardised assessment and what some teachers, school educa-
tional administrators and community members consider what is in the best
interests of students. Nor is there any doubt about what many of these people
consider is the most beneficial response by governments and school educational
authorities in response to constant surveillance.
Nevertheless, there is no suggestion that this almost omnipresent surveil-
lance through mandatory standardised testing of the teaching professions and
school education is about to abate. Fed by globalism and risk society, it now
has become a huge and influential international industry, and has become a part
of school culture in the countries we have under consideration in this book.

References
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban class-
rooms: a multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English. 38(2). pp. 177–212.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Edu-
cational Researcher. 36(5). pp. 258–267.
BBC News (2016). Nicola Sturgeon details standardised school testing plans. (6 January).
Retrieved 16 September 2017 from [Link]/news/uk-scotland-35237834.
 National standardised testing and reporting 153
BBC News: Education & Family (2016). Primary tests: What are the changes? (10 May).
Retrieved 16 September 2017 from [Link]/news/education-35907385.
Brown, D, Galassi, J & Alos, P. (2004). School Counselors’ perceptions of the impact of high-
stakes testing. Professional School Counseling. (October). Retrieved 20 October 2011 from
[Link] mi_mOKOC/is_1_8/ai_n6335435/?tag+content;col1.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America, New York: Basic Books.
Buckingham, J. (2015). Ignore the doubters, NAPLAN is important and it’s working.
ABC News: The Drum (5 August). Retrieved 17 September 2017 from [Link]/
news/2015-08-05/buckingham-naplan-is-important-and-its-working/6674352.
Carnoy, M. & Rothstein, R. (2015). What international test scores tell us. Society. 52(2).
pp. 122–128.
Cremin, L. (1964). Transformation of the school: progressivism in American education, 1876–1957.
New York: Vintage Books.
David, J. (2011). What students need to learn: high-stakes testing narrows the curriculum.
Educational Leadership. 68(6). pp. 78–80.
Dodd, T. (2017). Why Mark Scott thinks education’s future lies in data, computers and
diagnosis. Financial Review. (18 August). Retrieved 20 August 2017 from [Link]/
leadership/why-mark-scott-thinks-educations-future-lies-in-data-computers-and-ai-
20170815-gxx05m.
Emery, K. & Ohanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools? Ports-
mouth: Heinemann Educational Books.
Eurydice at NFER Unit for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (n.d.) National Testing
of Pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Retrieved 12 September 2017 from
[Link]/pdf/[Link].
Flores, B. & Clark, E. (2003). Texas voices speak out about high-stakes testing: preservice
teachers, teachers and students. Current Issues in Education (online). 6(3). Retrieved 29 August
2011 from [Link] edu/volume6/number3/[Link].
Griffith, M. (2017). NAPLAN: School students’ performance shows small improvement
after 10 years of testing. ABC News (2 August). Retrieved 17 September 2017 from
[Link]/news/2017-08-02/naplan-results-show-small-change-in-school-
students-performance/8764994
Haggerty, K.D. & Ericson, R.V. (2005). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. pp.
3–34. In The new politics of surveillance and visibility. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press.
Harrington, M. (n.d.). Improving school performance. Parliament of Australia. Briefing
Paper 44p/School Performance. Retrieved 11 September 2017 from [Link]/
About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/Briefing
Book44p/SchoolPerformance.
Harris, E.A. (2015). As common core testing is ushered in, parents and students opt out.
New York Times (1 March). Retrieved 12 November 2016 from [Link]
com/2015/03/02/nyregion/as-common-core-testing-is-ushered-in-parents-and-stu
[Link].
How Useful Are Standardized Tests? (2015). New York Times: Opinion. (17 February).
Retrieved 12 November 2016 from [Link]
[Link]?_r=0.
Jacob, B.A. (2002). Accountability, incentives and behavior: the impact of high-stakes testing in
the Chicago public schools. NBER Working Paper No. 8968 (June) JEL No. I20, I28, J24.
Jones, P.D. (2017). Primum non nocere: rethinking our policies on out-of-home care in Aus-
tralia. Medical Journal of Australia (Perspective). 206(10). p. 1.
154 National standardised testing and reporting
Katz, M. (1971). Class, bureaucracy and the school, New York: Praeger Publishers.
Kincheloe, J.L. (2012). Positivist standards and the bizarre educational world of the twenty-
first century. In J. Solar, C.S. Walsh, A. Craft, J. Rix & K. Simmons. Transforming practices:
Critical issues in equity, diversity and education. Milton Keynes, UK: Trenthan Books, pp.
43–56.
Kindergarten Entrance Assessment (2014.). Education Commission of the States (March).
Retrieved 30 January 2017 from [Link]
Layton, L. (2015). Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools.
Washington Post (24 October). Retrieved 16 February 2017 from [Link].
com/local/education/study-says-standardized-testing-is-overwhelming-nations-public-
schools/2015/10/24/8a22092c-79ae-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html.
Linden, S. (2007). The Impact of Standardized Testing on Student Performance in the United
States. PhD thesis, Salve Regina University. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from http://
[Link]/cgi/[Link]?article=1010&context=pell_theses.
Lingard, B. (2009). Testing times: the need for new intelligent accountabilities for schooling.
Queensland Teachers Union Professional Magazine. (November). pp. 13–20.
Lobascher, S. (2011). What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy educa-
tion in Australia? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy. 34(2). pp. 9–19.
Madaus, G., Russell, M. & Higgins, J. (2009). The Paradoxes of high-stakes testing: how they
affect students, their teachers, principals, schools and society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
McIvor, J. (2015). Scottish education: The return of standardised testing? BBC News (1 Sep-
tember). Retrieved 16 September 2017 from [Link]/news/uk-scotland-34108172.
Miller, L. (2008). Foucauldian constructionism. In J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium (Eds.)
Handbook of constructionist research. New York/London: Guildford Press, pp. 251–274.
Miller, P. (1986). Long division: State schooling in South Australian society, Adelaide: Wakefield
Press.
Moran, P.W. (2015). Efficiency, standardization and mitigating risk: the strange career of sci-
entific management in American education, 1890–2010. In S. Bialostok, R. Whitman &
W.S. Bradley (Eds.) Education and the risk society: theories, discourse and risk identities in educa-
tion contexts. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense, pp. 55–74.
O’Donoghue, T. (2017). Understanding contemporary education: key themes and issues. New
York/London: Routledge.
Paris, S. & McEvoy, A. (2000). Harmful and enduring effects of high-stakes testing. Issues in
Education. 6(1/2). pp. 145–160.
Patty, A. (2011). NAPLAN-style testing has “failed” US schools. Sydney Morning Herald
(2 May). Retrieved 17 September 2017 from [Link]/national/education/
[Link].
Polesel, J., Dulfer, N. & Turnbull, M. (2012). The experience of education: The impacts of
high stakes testing on school students and their families (literature review). The University
of Western Sydney: The Whitlam Institute.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2009). Student assessment regimes: getting the balance right
for Australia (Draft discussion paper). Retrieved 27 September 2010 from <[Link]
[Link]/downloads/ publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance_aust.pdf>.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: how testing and choice
are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Reay, D. & William, D. (1999). “I’ll be a nothing”: structure, agency and the construction
of identity through assessment [1]. British Educational Research Journal. 25(3). pp. 343–354.
 National standardised testing and reporting 155
Reid, A. (2017). Serious flaws in how PISA measured student behaviour and how Australian
media reported the results. EduResearch Matters (2 October). Retrieved 3 October 2017
from [Link]/blog/?p=2455.
Rose, N. (2009). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology. 40. pp. 321–339.
Shiel, G., Kellaghan, T. & Moran. G. (2010). Standardised Testing In Lower Secondary Educa-
tion. Research conducted on behalf of the National Council for Curriculum and Assess-
ment. Educational Research Centre St Patrick’s College, Dublin.
Spring, J. (2015). Globalization and education. An introduction. New York/London: Routledge.
Stroud, G. (2017). NAPLAN results show it is time to hand trust back to teachers. ABC News
(2 February). Retrieved 17 September 2017 from [Link]/news/2016-12-14/
naplan-results-show-teachers-should-make-education-decisons/8117556.
The Drum Friday September 15 (2017). ABC The Drum. Retrieved 17 September 2017
from [Link]/news/2017-09-15/the-drum-friday-september-15/8951314.
The Drum Tuesday December 13 (2016). ABC The Drum. Retrieved 17 September 2017
from [Link]/news/2016-12-13/the-drum-tuesday-december-13/8117680.
The Drum Wednesday August 3 (2016). ABC The Drum. Retrieved 17 September 2017 from
[Link]/news/2016-08-03/the-drum-wednesday-august-3/7687788.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992). Testing in American Schools:
Asking the right questions, OTA-SET-519. Lessons from the past: A history of educa-
tional testing in the United States. Retrieved 11 September 2017 from [Link].
edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9236/[Link].
Williams, P. (2009). Analytic report: factors contributing to and ways of improving Aus-
tralia’s educational performance. Submission to the Inquiry into the Administration and
Reporting of NAPLAN Testing, Senate References Committee on Education, Employ-
ment & Workplace Relations, Canberra.
Year 1 students to face literacy and numeracy tests (2017). 7News (29 January). Retrieved
30 January 2017 from [Link]
birmingham-pushes-for-year-1-students-to-face-literacy-and-numeracy-tests/#page1.
Zernike, K. (2015). Obama Administration calls for limits on testing in schools. New York
Times (24 October). Retrieved 12 November from [Link]/2015/10/25/us/
[Link].
7 National curricular

Introduction
Anyone who has time-slipped from today from a school or college to a school
or college of the 1960s, 1970 or early 1980s, would notice a massive change
in emphasis in education policy, from a prominence on the individual to that
of the nation state, and even to supranational “organizations” such as the
OECD. For Carr and Thésée [2008, 174], this drive should be balanced by
a school curriculum which assists in “critique[s], deconstruct[s] and become
engaged in society”. Alternatives are a curriculum which makes students “pas-
sive consumers, patriotic supporters of war, and enthusiastic adherents to ‘the
marketplace’”. However admirable these sentiments are, a school curriculum
which enables school education students to “critique, deconstruct and become
engaged in society”, can also be harnessed towards risk society imperatives.
By the 1990s, educational researchers were looking to the impact of globali-
sation on national school education, and illustrating its highly nuanced forms
[e.g., Lingard & Rizvi: 1998]. However, there remained much to be done to
research its connection with the emerging ideas of risk society theory. Within
a decade, however, all of that was about to change.

National curricular: politics! globalism! risk society!

Henderson [2015, 633] sees the massive developments in Australian national
curricular, responding to globalisation as “reforms”. To begin with, the use
of that word is concerning, but that aside, while avoiding any reference to
the term “risk society”, basing her point on Rizvi and Lingard [2010], she
argued “. . . recent literature on the allocation of values in educational policy
refers to the transnational shift towards a neoliberal values orientation which
emphasises human capital formation and new knowledge industries that nation
states require to compete in the global economy”. Of course, this is an exam-
ple of educational policy bureaucrats and politicians responding to risk society
imperatives. As Henderson [2015, 633] rightly states, this is all about responses
to globalisation. But, first we should now respond to Henderson’s [2015, 633]
use of the term “reform”.
 National curricular 157
The illusionary language of “reform”
In line with research by Phillips [2000] referred to in Chapter 4, Harris and
Marsh [2005, 16] highlighted the use of language as being of significant impor-
tance to the study of curriculum development – that is, the way in which the use
of language subtly depicts power interplays and positions of authority: “Many
terms are coupled with ‘curriculum’ to describe or label particular attempts at
change. Indeed, the terms ‘curriculum reform’ and ‘curriculum innovation’
suggest very different understandings of, or orientations to, change”. In a sense,
it could be argued that this kind of language is used to alleviate and perceived
fears associated with risk society thinking. In other words it becomes a strategic
move to counter popular notions of risk. Harris and Marsh [2005, 16] asked
us to consider the nature of discourse in its broadest sense, especially ideology
in its conscious and unconscious levels, “then we must also recognize that the
meaning-making process (the discursive process) affects relations of power”.
Harris and Marsh [2005] urged a close examination of words such as “reform”
and “innovation”. Indeed, understanding the role of language in academic
articles, the media and popular discourse is vitally important in understanding
power relationships in government school education policy.
The language of “reform” is for the political elites with the purpose of
manipulating public opinion and gaining or sustain political power, particu-
larly through the media. CDA is a most insightful research tool in the kind of
research accompanying this book. For example, troubling is the use of the term
“neoliberal reform” repeatedly in the literature. Do writers mean “improve”,
because that is the only apparent dictionary meaning? Or, do they mean “neo-
liberal developments/changes”? “Reform” can only be synonymous with
“improve”, perhaps, as is the case with some writers, journalists and politi-
cians, even synonymous with words such as “progress”. And that is a concern.
The term “neoliberal education reform” can only be an oxymoron, and
more suited to writers of right-wing ideologies, or just simply careless writers.
Admittedly, there are ample works, which use the word in the same manner, as
a synonym for “improve”, or “progress”, but in doing so miss an opportunity
to challenge the connection of neoliberalism and educational developments,
particularly in studies [e.g., Sturges: 2015] which have at its core issues of
equity. Of course, the same applies with other aspects of the history of moral
panics impacting school education. I argue there is very little in “neoliberal
reform” which was in fact – from my perspective, at least – “reform”. Indeed,
this is quite the opposite. “Change” or “development”, yes, but not “reform”
or “progress”.
National curricular are highly politicised and a tool of power [Apple:
1982/2011]. And we can add, as well as being substantially influenced by
globalism and risk society imperatives. Risk society imperatives determine
knowledge-based economies such as the US, the UK and Australia develop
education initiatives, but in turn result in more risk, anxieties and uncertain-
ties [Beck: 1992, cited in Lee & Gopinathan: 2015, 133]. Globalism chimes
158 National curricular
in, resulting in a “runaway world”, ensuring individual national governments
tighten control over school education in a manner that they do with other
pressing priorities such as border control [Giddens: 1999, cited in Lee &
Gopinathan: 2015, 133]. Control over what power elites perceive as desirable
knowledge in a globalised world is often a high priority.
Citing research by Lee and Gopinathan [2015, 135] show with the so-called
neoliberal curriculum “reforms” of this period of later modernity, “a number
of convergences are noticeable”. First, there was a perception to reduce the
“traditional” dependence on the welfare state. Bringing the notion of reflex-
ive modernisation into play, in Australia, this equates with the breaking of
most links with the school educational developments of the Whitlam Labour
Government (1972–1975) and the Fraser Coalition Government (1975–1983).
Secondly, with these school educational developments so closely linked to
neoliberalism, there was “a belief in the need for greater cost management
and strategies for individual development” [Lee & Gopinathan: 2015, 135].
This is a product of economic rationalism, so extensively described by Pusey
[1991]. Thirdly, there was “the conviction that greater hi-tech niche-marketing
is needed” [Lee & Gopinathan: 2015, 135]. Fourth, there was a belief “in
increased post-compulsory participation” [Lee & Gopinathan: 2015, 135]. In
Australia, this point was manifest in a relentless drive by the Commonwealth
for increased post-compulsory student retention rates. Here, the percentage
of students in post-compulsory secondary education rose substantially, from
35 per cent in 1982 to 77 per cent in 1992 [Ryan & Bramston, 2003]. Fifth,
“there was a greater emphasis on life-long learning” [Lee & Gopinathan: 2015,
135]. Sixth, there was a great centralisation and policy control by national gov-
ernments. This chimes into themes very close to risk society theory. Lee and
Gopinathan [2015, 135] also include a greater dependence on international
agencies such as UNESCO and the OECD in policy-settings.
For Astiz, Wiseman and Baker [2002, 66], both economic and institutional
globalisation forces push nations to decentralise their administration of social
services, including education. This was a process contrary to what occurred in
Australia, where states and territories increasingly have forfeited their control
over curricular from the states and territories to ACARA. Yet, for these inter-
national researchers, “a significant set of nations has responded to the legiti-
mizing global forces within a multinational economy and world institutional
system by adopting decentralization” [Astiz, Wiseman & Baker: 2002, 66]. Par-
ticularly, “as the case of the administration of mathematics curricula shows with
the TIMSS data, this has been only a partial adoption. In reality, globalization
has pushed more nations into various mixes of decentralized and centralized
administration of education, with all of kinds of resulting paradoxes” [Astiz,
Wiseman & Baker: 2002, 66]. Speaking generally, the comparative educational
researchers claim: “Globalization does not necessarily produce simple isomor-
phism, yet it does produce nontrivial changes throughout systems of education
that, in turn, influence what actually happens in the daily experiences of teach-
ers and students in classrooms” [Astiz, Wiseman & Baker: 2002, 66].
 National curricular 159
Singapore revisited
Responding to risk society imperatives, by the late 20th century, most devel-
oped nations in one way or another increasingly were developing school edu-
cation programs as some form of security shield against these often unforseen
global vagaries. The body of this present book addresses how Australia, the US
and the UK responded in this regard, but South-East Asian city-state of Singa-
pore also offers a fascinating case study, and this should be explored by way of
example. Building on the brief introductory survey in the Introduction to this
study of how Singapore, in a macro sense, has responded to globalisation, this
book should now revisit that South-east Asian city-state.
As O’Neill and Chapman [2015, 3] showed “globalisation is not a totalis-
ing force”. These researchers insisted: “Such a representation ignores the sig-
nificance of context, agency and micro-level politics and resistance”. Indeed,
“global education trends on policy, theory and practice are inevitably mediated
at national and local levels, reflecting and resulting in heightened context-
specific differences”. To make their point, the researchers cite Marginson
[1999, 20, cited in O’Neill & Chapman: 2015, 2] who had argued: “Globalisa-
tion is about world systems which have a life of their own that is distinct from
local and national life, even while these world systems tend to determine the
local and national”. Marginson [1999, 20, cited in O’Neill & Chapman: 2015,
2] argued: “This does not mean that the global determines the local in a total
or one-directional fashion – but it has the potential to affect every part of the
world, including educational institutions and programs, and the subjectivities
formed in education”.
The truth of the above research is obvious when one considers the Aus-
tralian context, which, particularly over recent years, has had a kaleidoscope
of political changes at the state, territory and national levels. For the federal
minister for education to negotiate national school education policy, he/she
needs to not only negotiate the maze of federalism, but also changing political
circumstances: for example, when Malcolm Turnbull ousted Tony Abbott as
Prime Minister in September 2015, Australia has had five prime ministers in
five years. Clearly, Australia’s federalist system and its political circumstances are
but few of the points which would contrast the country sharply with Singa-
pore. Researchers have studied this phenomenon in the context of globalism.
With the agency heuristic experience proposed by Marginson and Rhoades
[2002, cited in cited in O’Neill & Chapman: 2015, 2] comes “a means of
recognising the complexity of agencies and their influence at every level of
the global, national (regional) and local trajectory”. For O’Neill & Chapman
[2015, 2], this “highlights six types of agency: global agencies; global human
agency; national agencies; national human agency; local agencies; and local
human agency”. Clearly, an understanding of the effects of globalism on a
nation’s school education will need to be highly nuanced.
Moreover, just as the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 changed the school
education landscape of many developed and developing countries, O’Neill &
160 National curricular
Chapman [2015, 2] point to the research conducted by Gopinathan [2007],
who compared the nation state strategies of the “Asian tiger” economies before
and after the 1997 financial crisis, and argued the nation states have retained
sufficient agency to modify their policies and practices according to changes in
the global contexts. This was Singapore.
Paralleling the growth in globalism, came a growing dominance of neoliberal
economic policies, not just in Singapore, of course, but internationally. By the
beginning of the 21st century, educational “reforms” under the banner of global-
ism had reached into vast numbers of countries. “The ideology of globalism is
neoliberalism”, wrote Turner and Yolcu [2014, xiv]. This is a belief that free mar-
kets deliver the best educational outcomes for a nation (not necessarily, individual
children and families), and that market forces should be given full play. Moreover,
school education should first be conceived as fulfilling a national purpose.
Consequently, an important sub-theme of this book is to highlight how
researchers should examine the word “reform” critically, and rather look to
the full impact of these measures delivered on various countries, principally
through such international agencies as the OECD, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
By the second decade of the 21st century some educational policy academics
were questioning seriously these market directed imperatives:

By increasing competition, government policies have increased the effec-

tiveness of many sectors of the economy. But school education is not one of
them. The impact of interventions to increase school competition has been
marginal, at best. Even in Australian education markets with relatively high
numbers of private schools, with government funding to private schools,
and with government schools that have relatively high autonomy, most
schools face no or limited competition based on their performance. The
structure of school education and the failures in the market are too great.
This doesn’t mean that school competition has a negative impact or does
not have other benefits. Nor does it mean that some schools don’t face
competitive pressures or that some students will choose schools because
they are high performing. It just means it is not a viable way of increasing
the performance of school systems.
[Jensen, et al.: 2013, 35]

Earlier, there had been the terrible havoc wreaked by the 11 September 2001
attacks in the US, and the massive readjustments to national securities in most
countries. Moreover, Singapore was especially shaken with the terrorist attacks
in Bali on 12 October 2002 in the tourist district of Kuta, the deadliest and
most sensational act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia according to the
current police general, killing (including 88 Australians, and 38 Indonesian
citizens). This was followed with a multitude of other terrorist attacks in the
country, at the same time challenging national policies in nearby Singapore
[Gopinathan: 2007].
 National curricular 161
We need to remind ourselves, however, that for the Western world before
terrorists there were communists and the Cold War, and the associated political
anxieties in the West. Indeed, a brief reflection on such an innocuous event in
the foreign policy history of the US, the UK and Australia as, for example the
Colombo Plan will show, the decades following World War II well illustrates
the gravity of this point. Oakman’s (2004) research, “reminds us that, before
terrorism, it was communism that provided the impetus for the protection of
borders” [Carton: 2005, n.p.].

Enter climate change curriculum

Earlier in this present study we read of the Maldives response in terms of school
education to climate change. This small island nation could not hope to compete
with the response by US school education authorities. Here, it was announced
in 2013 that American school children for the first time will “receive extensive
lessons on climate change following the adoption . . . of new science education
guidelines”. Now, “the new science teaching standards will introduce climate
change as a core aspect of science education for middle and high school students
in up to 40 states – in many for the first time” [Goldenburg: 2013, n.p.].
Political imperatives are well reflected in the teaching climate science [2016]
blog. Henceforth, while climate activists see bringing climate change into the
classroom as a simple matter of updating the science curriculum, it was shown
there were vast political barriers to be overcome. A survey revealed that sci-
ence teachers are often ill-equipped to deal with the subject. “The majority of
Americans are worried about climate change, yet the subject is barely covered
in public school science classes. The Allegheny Front’s Julie Grant reported on
the powerful forces and opinions that make global warming a potential mine-
field for teachers” [The politics of teaching climate science: 2016, n.p.]. With
the politics of climate change so intense, one must expect the politics of teach-
ing the related issues to be equally intense [Kellow: n.d.].
With the 2016 federal election results, and the return of four Pauline Han-
son’s One Nation senators, Australian school communities were wondering
about the future of the climate change aspects of the National curriculum. Ex-
coal industry man, Senator Malcolm Roberts, from One Nation, Queensland,
expressed “his disappointment with Liberal-Labor-Nationals-Greens politi-
cians, unable to listen, refusing to face the facts and lacking care for our coun-
try led to his decision to join Pauline Hanson in standing for the Senate”. He
was vocal about pushing for a Royal Commission into climate science, and the
abolition of the Renewable Energy Target. Perhaps, not surprisingly, he also
announced he “wants the teaching of climate science in schools to be based on
‘the scientific method of scepticism’”. Additionally, he announced he would
be pushing for a review of the Bureau of Meteorology, “including ‘public jus-
tification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records’ and a
review of the CSIRO to determine whether funding has influenced its climate
claims” [Hasham: 2016, n.p.].
162 National curricular
There was a massive 3.8 per cent swing to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in
the Australian 2016 senate election, returning four senators, compared with a 0
per cent swing for the Greens on the opposite wing of the political spectrum.
Although the Greens returned nine senators, with an 8:7 vote [Federal Elec-
tion: 2016, n.d., n.p.]. If these results are reflected in the politics of the teaching
of climate change in Australian schools, Australian school communities can
look forward to interesting times.
In the UK, teaching programs on climate change in school education had been
sporadic, clearly illustrating the political nature of the subject. In referring to the
teaching of climate change in Welsh school education, Hickman [2011, n.p.]
stated: “It is still common to hear the view that school children are being ‘brain-
washed’ in classrooms with climate change ‘propaganda’”. However, in 2011,
a new climate change educational resource would be forwarded to secondary
schools across Wales – “but will it appease sceptics?” asked Hickman [2011, n.p.].
Charges of teaching climate change in terms of “unscientific, alarmist non-
sense” had been levelled by the veteran children’s television presenter, Johnny
Ball, “who claimed that pupils are being made to watch films about climate
change at school” [Hickman: 2011, n.p.]. When Hickman [2011, n.p.] investi-
gated these charges with readers and the Department of Education, he “wasn’t
exactly overwhelmed with concrete evidence of this actually being the case”.
But now Hickman [2011, n.p.] had “something a little more concrete to dis-
cuss. Over the coming weeks, secondary schools across Wales will receive a
new teaching resource aimed at key stage 4 pupils (14–16 years old)”.
The English Department of Education was less forthcoming than its
Welsh counterparts. Hickman [2013] reported how here the department had
“changed the wording of the key Stage 3 geography curriculum to incorporate
climate change”. Indeed, “after months of angst and debate over the omission
of the term ‘climate change’ from the draft version of the new geography cur-
riculum for key Stages 1–3, the Department for Education . . . released the new
wording, which allow[ed] for the teaching of climate change in the Geography
Curriculum for Stage 3 (secondary schools)” [Hickman: 2013, n.p.].
In Scotland, elements of climate change are taught at all levels of school
education. The Scottish online resources begin by declaring: “Climate change
is an important and complex issue which is impacting on nature, biodiver-
sity and people around the world”. Moreover, “given its global significance, it
offers a stimulating and meaningful context for children and young people to
learn about sustainability and develop as global citizens. It can also be readily
used to support learning across the curriculum and to deliver experiences and
outcomes within all curriculum areas, especially within sciences, technologies
and social studies” [Weather and climate change: n.d., n.p.].
The Australian National Curriculum comprehensively caters for the topic of
climate change, but politically, in respect to uptake by the various educational
authorities it has to compete with the vagaries of federalism, where states and
territories remain as the final arbiters on what is taught in their schools and
colleges.
 National curricular 163
“Unlike the US, the Australian federal government is highly invested in
determining a national curriculum, though the many problems of whole-scale
state implementation are not yet solved” [Whitehouse: 2013, n.p.]. Indeed, “in
the Australian Curriculum: Science version 5.0, the three most controversial
elements of a school science curriculum – the origin of the universe, evolution
by natural selection and climate change/global warming – are explicitly taught
at Year Ten” [Whitehouse: 2013, n.p.]. Despite this, the politics of teaching
climate change in Australian schools, given the maize of federalism, is subtle,
but persuasive.
According to Whitehouse [2013, n.p.], “the language of environmental
change and global human impacts in the curriculum from Foundation Year to
Year Nine is unclear and tentative. The impacts humans ‘can have’ on environ-
ments are cautiously positioned around personal choice and actions”. Despite
the obvious impact of climate change, even in 2013, according to the Austra-
lian Curriculum: “Students use their scientific knowledge to make informed
choices about issues that impact their lives such as health and nutrition and
environmental change, and consider the application of science to meet a range
of personal and social needs” [Whitehouse: 2013, n.p.]. For the researcher,
“this is not robust language for addressing a global crisis”. But the vagaries of
federalism inflict this middle-of-the-road approach to much controversial topic
in all aspects of the Australian Curriculum.
But given the approving “nod” by the various state or territory education
authority, Whitehouse [2013, n.p.] is correct in claiming “there is nothing to
prevent an educator from actively teaching climate change to younger chil-
dren” through to Year 9 in various parts of the Australian Curriculum.
Unlike Australia and the UK, in the US, public K-12 education standards are
set at the state, and not federal level, which means there are normally 50 differ-
ent sets of standards for learning in the 50 different states. With the topic of cli-
mate change, however, more centripetal forces in educational decision-making
are becoming evident. A group of states had recently signed up to adopt the
same learning goals – the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). This has
occurred during the Trump administration, which in mid-2017 announced the
US would pull out of the Paris climate agreement, saying the deal was unfair
to American businesses. His views on climate change and “fake news” long
had international media attention. Senior members of his administration – like
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) head, Scott Pruitt – seemed “set to
discredit evidence supporting climate change” [Jackson: 2017, n.p.].
International media reported these events as causing “deeply partisan divi-
sions” in US school educational policy, seated as they are in risk society imbro-
glios. The issue of climate change has set public schools as a battleground in
the fight. “Seemingly innocuous standard-setting – which usually entails dryly-
worded learning benchmarks for students – has become a political issue that
plays out at the state level” [Jackson: 2017].
Consequently, in mid-2017 nineteen states plus the District of Columbia
now had the same standards for teaching the earth sciences and about climate
164 National curricular
change. Issues of climate change were highly politicised, and by mid-2017 in
the US the battleground had moved to the nation’s classrooms, with the NGSS
unequivocally linking human activities to climate change.
Mandated to be taught in the NGSS, the topic of climate change is controver-
sial in the science standard-setting universe. “In science education, ‘the two topics
that arouse the most discontent and controversy are climate change and evolu-
tion’, Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Educa-
tion” was reported as stating [Jackson: 2017, n.p.]. “The NGSS has emerged as the
‘gold standard’ in science learning, according to Branch” [Jackson: 2017, n.p.].
Further, Branch was reported as stating: “Some states that haven’t adopted
the NGSS still have strong science standards related to climate change” [Jack-
son: 2017, n.p.]. Here, Branch used Massachusetts as one example. However,

But for many others, the handling of climate change is much more
nuanced. Some mention climate change but don’t link human activities to
its rise, others do not reference climate change at all, and still others may
soon include language about climate change denial.
Texas, for example, introduced a bill referencing teachers’ academic free-
dom in teaching science standards, which some experts say would allow for
climate change denial and therefore undermine science education.
[Jackson: 2017, n.p.]

Meanwhile, the struggle over what American students learn about global warm-
ing was heating up as conservative lawmakers and various advocate groups
pushed to make more room for scepticism in the classroom. For example, the
debate arrived in tangible form on teachers’ desks nationwide, as thousands were
mailed the book Why scientists disagree about global warming from a Chicago-area
advocacy group called The Heartland Institute that “challenged the assertion
that there is consensus about a human-caused climate crisis” [Franco: 2017]. In
a follow-up statement, the institute’s president was reported as stating: “Science
instructors should ‘keep an open mind’ and shouldn’t teach ‘dogma pushed by
some environmental activist groups’” [Franco: 2017].

School education and obesity

By the 1980s, it was being asserted: “Obese children and adolescents are at an
increased risk of developing various health problems, and are also more likely
to become obese adults” [Child Obesity: n.d., n.p.]. Indeed, “the World Health
Organization (WHO) regards childhood obesity as one of the most serious
global public health challenges for the 21st century” [Child Obesity: n.d.], so
much so that the National Child Measurement Program (NCMP) measures
the height and weight of around one million school children in England every
year, “providing a detailed picture of the prevalence of child obesity” [Child
Obesity: n.d., n.p.]. Data from the most recent research was alarming: “For
2015/16, show that 19.8% of children in Year 6 (aged 10–11) were obese and
 National curricular 165
a further 14.3% were overweight. Of children in Reception (aged 4–5), 9.3%
were obese and another 12.8% were overweight. This means a third of 10–11
year olds and over a fifth of 4–5 year olds were overweight or obese” [Child
Obesity: n.d., n.p.].
Experts voiced deep unease at the figures and upward trend. “It is deeply
worrying that more children are leaving primary school overweight or obese
than ever before and levels are increasing”, explained Professor Kevin Fen-
ton, the national director for health and wellbeing at Public Health England,
which advises the government [Campbell: 2016, n.p.]. Data from the 2015/16
showed: “Nationally, the number of reception children who are either over-
weight or obese has also risen, from 21.9% to 22.1%. The same picture emerges
with year six pupils, the number of whom found to be overweight or obese
rose from 33.2% to 34.2%” [Campbell: 2016, n.p.]. For the high-profile, media-
savvy health guru, Jamie Oliver, the national government was exacerbating the
national risk: he accused Prime Minister May “of putting the interests of big
business above those of public health and letting down children and families by
publishing a ‘weak’ action plan in August” [Campbell: 2016, n.p.]. According
to [Campbell: 2016, n.p.], the figures come after Theresa May’s government
was criticised for watering down the childhood obesity strategy that her prede-
cessor, David Cameron, intended to publish.
In an interesting parallel to the long history of governments and school educa-
tion authorities responding with medical solutions to national health problems
through developments in school furniture and architectures, governments and
school education authorities responded with innovative developments [Rodwell:
2017]. For example, some schools in the US experimented with a drastic form
of new classroom furniture. Indeed, now “being told to ‘sit still’ in the classroom”
in some schools became a thing of the past. Cha [2015, n.p.] in the Washington
Post reported: “Schools in a growing number of jurisdictions are experimenting
with the once-faddish, now commonplace tool of the modern office dweller:
the standing desk. Now, in the national fight against childhood obesity, school
administrators were preaching the virtues how these desks will transform class-
rooms into ‘activity-permissive environments’”. The interest in getting standing
desks in schools has its roots in the growing obesity epidemic in the US and other
wealthy, obesity-stricken countries. “The idea is to get school children – who
can spend an incredible 65 to 70 percent of their waking hours sitting – moving
more during the day. It could help them lose weight, improve their cardiovascular
health, reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes, and see other physical and psycholog-
ical benefits” Cha [2015, n.p.] reported Stacy Clemes as stating the from Lough-
borough’s School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences. Increasingly, across the
US, the UK and Australia, schools were turning to standing desks.

Sexuality education
“To understand risk society”, wrote Franklin, “we have to begin to think in
a new way about the way we live in, to find a new language to describe what
166 National curricular
is happening to us. We have to become acutely aware of how it feels to live in
risk society” [Franklin: 1998, 1]. Nowhere is this more apparent than in issues
associated with new issues arising from sexuality education programs.
In addressing issues associated with sex education in England and Wales,
Blaire and Monk [2009, 41] wrote how “risk society theory has clear implica-
tions for decisions about engaging in or refraining from sexual activity, as risks
of STIs [sexually transmitted infections] and pregnancy, and risks to reputation
have always formed part of the territory of this debate”. Increasingly, for the
last two decades of the 20th century, risk society imperatives have impacted on
sex education and sexuality education policies, and not without multiple layers
of moral panic [Rodwell: 2017, chap. 4]. As this has occurred, often in parallel
with changes in marriage equity in a broader sense, the issues and language of
sexuality education have broadened to include matters related to equity and
anti-bullying education.
Blaire and Monk [2009, 42], however, alerted readers to one further related
issue here. This is the tendency, highlighted by Furedi [1997/2006], of the
“precautionary principle”, where “the extent of the risk inherent in an activity
is uncertain and should be avoided”. This has translated into mindsets where
increasingly families and communities readily are handing over traditional
responsibilities in these matters to educational responsibilities. Not surprisingly,
these perceived risks snowballed with the use of online material and the use of
social media.
Early in 2017, England’s Education Secretary, Justine Greening, confirmed
sex education was to be made compulsory in all schools in England, and not
just schools not under local authority control. “All children from the age of
four will be taught about safe and healthy relationships and children in sec-
ondary schools will be given age-appropriate lessons about sex” [Pells: 2017,
n.p.]. Significantly, the government’s announcement meant: “All schools across
England are now bound by the same obligation and include lessons on the
dangers of online pornography, sexting and sexual harassment” [Pells: 2017,
n.p.]. The looming presence of risk society imperatives was only too obvious
in the policy determination. It followed “months of campaigning from MPs
and charity groups who successfully argued that the current curriculum is years
out of date and does not reflect the dangers faced by young people today”
[Pells: 2017, n.p.]. Particularly, it failed “‘to address risks to children which have
grown in prevalence in recent years, including online pornography, sexting and
staying safe online’” Greening was reported as explaining [Pells: 2017, n.p.].
The Guttmacher Institute highlighted the kaleidoscope of sex education and
sexuality state legislation in the US, all developed since the 1970s when risk
society thinking began to impact school educational policy. The US, however,
was not keeping pace with England and Wales.
Sorace [2015, n.p.] called for an increase in sexuality education in US schools,
partly because of the manner in which it assisted in combatting the “influence
of social media and technology on relationships, as well as pregnancy and sexu-
ally transmitted disease prevention”. For her, educational policy people needed
 National curricular 167
to recognise “one-time lectures, multi-session programs and online resources
can help supplement school-based sex education, but they don’t reach most
students and can’t replace this systematic approach to learning” [Sorace: 2015,
n.p.]. Tragically, “school administrators sometimes shy away from sexuality
education because they fear controversy and worry about taking time from
other subjects” [Sorace: 2015, n.p.]. This is despite “overwhelming parental
support for sex education in schools” [Sorace: 2015, n.p.].
Sorace is the founder and a consultant to the Future of Sex Education proj-
ect, which promotes improvement of sex education in the nation’s schools
through advertising developments such as those in England and Wales. Also
on its website are links to such teacher and community support sites as The
Nation’s Sexuality Education Standards, National Teacher Preparation Stan-
dards for Sexuality Education and Building a Foundation for Sexual Health Is a
K – 12 Endeavour: Evidence Underpinning the National Sexuality Education
Standards. Of course, this provides wonderful material assistance for school
communities, but almost meaningless if school education authorities do not
push for compulsory implementation as has occurred in England and Wales.
Through the US Sexual Information and Education Council website (n.d.)
a vast array of professional medical associations in the US pushed for more
comprehensive policies on sexuality education. A common theme in the plea
is concern for school educational measure to counter national risks: for exam-
ple, “The American Medical Association (AMA) ‘urges schools to implement
comprehensive, developmentally appropriate sexuality education programs’ and
‘supports federal funding of comprehensive sex education programs that stress
the importance of abstinence in preventing unwanted teenage pregnancy and
sexually transmitted infections, and also teach about contraceptive choices and
safer sex’” [Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States:
n.d., n.p.]. In the absence of comprehensive national policies such as those in
place in England and Wales, encouraging adolescent abstinence in sexual activ-
ity is a common theme in the website messages.
To understand the divided approach to national American sex education
and sexuality education, according to some commentators we need to look
to the influence of the Christian Right on American state school educational
authorities. This brings into focus a serious issue with risk society theory influ-
encing national school education: some groups consider the policies being
attempted by some school educational authorities are of greater risk than the
risks themselves. In other words, risks are in the eyes of the beholder. The
Americans United for Separation of Church and State [2013, n.p.] argued this
point this way: “. . . to the Religious Right, comprehensive sex education is
threatening. Fundamentalist Christians and their allies say giving young people
the information they need to protect themselves sends the wrong message and
implies that it’s all right to have sex. Their preferred approach is to stress absti-
nence and only abstinence”. Indeed, according to the Americans United for
Separation of Church and State [2013, n.p.], “the data-proof ideologues of the
Religious Right are not swayed by evidence, but other Americans should be.
168 National curricular
This is clearly a delicate issue, and we must strive for a reasonable balance. That
balance should embrace the value of abstinence but also address the realities of
how many teenagers live their lives”.
The latter organisation made a special plea to American state school educa-
tional authorities: “One thing we know for sure: when it comes to sex educa-
tion, sound science and fundamentalist sermonizing from the Religious Right
don’t mix. It’s time to embrace the former and expel the latter” [Americans
United for Separation of Church and State: 2013, n.p.]. For this organisation,
“Religious Right groups held an inordinate amount of influence over sex edu-
cation programs for many years, working to restrict funding to any program
that was not anchored in abstinence and sometimes even directing tax support
to approaches that were overtly religious” [Americans United for Separation of
Church and State: 2013, n.p.].
The Australian Government in 2016 met with the same sharp resistance
from the Christian Right with the advent of the Australian National Cur-
riculum and its Safe Schools sexuality educational policy, with risk society and
associated moral panics moving to a higher level. It seems as if it was a case
of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” [Rhodes, Nicholas, Jones, &
Rawlings: 2016].
The 2016 Safe Schools moral panic well illustrated the influence of the
Christian Right, as it reached into the Prime Minister’s office [Law: 2017].
With this particular moral panic, the Australian school curriculum reached
new levels of politicisation, at the same time providing fresh insights into the
interplay of school education curriculum, moral panic theory and risk society
theory. When the South Australian ABC ran a televised group session on the
South Australian precursor to Safe Schools, it was revealed the only objections
to the program came from the Christian Right. School community groups in
the state were quite happy with the program [Rodwell: 2016; 2017].
Yet, in Australia with the Safe Schools sexuality program, which in its origi-
nal form resembled very closely that in England and Wales, through its reach
into the Australian Parliament, the Christian Right had some severe modifica-
tions placed on it. It was removed from the nation’s primary and secondary
schools. Among the government’s changes were “the restriction of lessons to
secondary schools, the removal of role-playing exercises from the program, and
‘empowering parents’ to be involved in deciding whether the resources are used
in their children’s schools” [Martin: 2016, n.p.]. According to Martin, “the
Greens accused Mr Turnbull of ‘caving in to homophobes on the backbench’”
[Martin: 2016, n.p.].

Globalism, risk society and the mathematics curricular

As an African female scholar living in Canada, Namukasa, [2004, n.p.] found
many distinct challenges with the effects of globalism on the national math-
ematics curricular. She growled how “globalization has reinforced the utilitar-
ian approach to school mathematics and the Western bias in the prevailing
 National curricular 169
mathematics curricula, as well as helped to globalize pervasive mathematical
ideologies”. Moreover, tragically, “in most instances, a newfound status that
mathematics is enjoying in this era of globalization is not well deserved, as
school mathematics can no longer be considered culturally, socially, politi-
cally, nor economically neutral. In particular, school mathematics is increas-
ingly critiqued as a cultural homogenizing force, a critical filter for status, a
perpetuator of mistaken illusions of certainty, and an instrument of power”
[Namukasa: 2004, n.p.]. With this new national purpose for the mathemat-
ics curriculum, for Namukasa [2004, n.p.], “it is becoming more evident that
mathematics learning and education have implications for building just and
democratic societies”. Namukasa’s [2004] findings were supported by Quigley
[2009, 77] who found Indigenous cultures suffered with the fresh risk soci-
ety imperatives pressing the national mathematics curricular: “In a time of
globalization in terms of technology and increased worldwide travel where
populations migrate, indigenous knowledge is often dismissed as irrelevant and
the Internet makes location an intangible concept”. Lowe and Yunkaporta
[2015, 1] argued, likewise, despite claims otherwise, ACARA similarly had let
down Australia’s First Nation’s People in respect to the national mathematics
curriculum: “There appears to be a clear lack of intention on ACARA’s part
to engage fully with the potential of the Australian Curriculum to integrate
high-quality learning around the histories and cultures of Aboriginal and Tor-
res Strait Islander peoples”.
In the UK, as a response to the dual influences of risk society thinking and
globalisation, the nation’s perceived poor relative performance in PISA scores
prompted not a call for increased decentralisation, but rather a hard rethink
about what kind of mathematics students should be learning in school educa-
tion. Indeed, for one mathematics curriculum guru, “reading the headlines of
outrage after international school maths tests showed Britain lagging far behind
Asian countries, you might conclude that our children are bad at maths. But is
this the case?” [Wolfram: 2014, n.p.]. Not so, for Wolfram [2014, n.p.]. Even
if the UK PISA scores “decently reflect today’s maths standards, I believe that
simply trying to climb up the table is wrong”. UK mathematics curriculum
should not bother attempting to respond by comparing “Britain and Shang-
hai . . . but the worldwide difference between maths in education and maths in
the real world: everywhere, we are teaching largely the wrong maths” [Wolfram:
2014, n.p.]. To put the problem another way, international mathematics scores
were blinding curriculum authorities to the real problem: “In the real world we
use computers for calculating, almost universally; in [school] education we use
people for calculating, almost universally” [Wolfram: 2014, n.p.]. For Wolfram
[2014, n.p.], this is “so despised in education and yet so powerful and important
in real life”. In fact, school mathematics curriculum authorities “have confused
rigour at hand-calculating with rigour for the wider problem-solving subject
of maths – the necessary hand mechanics of past moments with the enduring
essence of maths” [2014, n.p.]. Globalism and risk society imperatives encour-
age a rethink of the very basics of the national mathematics curriculum, but
170 National curricular
for some doyens, school education authorities continued to be locked in anti-
quated thinking.
In the US, individual states control the nation’s school mathematics cur-
riculum, and the US Department of Education’s role is to act as the agency of
the federal government in establishing policy administering and coordinating
most federal assistance to education. At the same time it assists the president
in executing his education policies for the nation and in implementing laws
enacted by Congress in respect to mathematics curricular.
Joel Klein, then head of New York’s state-funded education system, the
world’s largest, moaned that in terms of international comparisons, American
schools were caught in a cruel time-warp, groaning under the weight of medi-
ocrity, and it was all about risk and international comparisons:

While America’s students are stuck in a ditch, the rest of the world is mov-
ing ahead. The World Economic Forum ranks us 48th in math and sci-
ence education. On international math tests, the United States is near the
bottom of industrialized [OECD] countries . . . and we’re in the middle
in science and reading. Similarly, although we used to have one of the top
percentages of high-school and college graduates among the OECD coun-
tries, we’re now in the basement for high-school and the middle for college
graduates. And these figures don’t take into account the leaps in educa-
tional attainment in China, Singapore, and many developing countries.

Globalism, risk society and the science curricular

As the opening page of the Introduction of this book demonstrated with an
example from Ward’s 1952 textbook, the science curriculum has long been a
site of a wide socio-cultural-economic ideology. While taking many twists and
turns in its history through to 2017, the school science curriculum has reached
a certain stage, when through modernisation society radicalises itself. In the
words of Beck, Bonss and Lau [2003, 1], which we referred to in the Introduc-
tion, society “begins to transform, for a second time, not only the key institu-
tions, but also the very principles of society. But this time the principles and
institutions being transformed are those of modern society”, and nonetheless
its science curriculum.
It has been argued that 21st century, industrialised nation states were – and
continue to be – faced with stark choices. They are able to choose between
ignoring, or indeed, quitting the competitive world economy, the neoliberal
state – shackled as they often are by risk society imperatives – and risking pro-
gressive impoverishment, or on the other hand, they can embrace and partici-
pate in the neoliberal state and the globalised economy with its attendant risks
of accelerated social disintegration, and changing relationships between school
education and national governments [Bennett: 2001]. Consequently, “the
geopolitical, economic and sociocultural complexity, that is, the twenty-first
century, requires globalisation to be part of the lexicon of science education
 National curricular 171
scholarship and practice” [Carter: 2015, 839]. Not surprisingly then, when
the Australian Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labour Government chose the latter step,
centralising the nation’s curricular through its ACARA bureaucracy, science
education was one of the first subjects mandated.
Clearly, science education became a fertile site for risk-society prompted
thinking in the school education curriculum. In the framework of Foucault’s
[2000] ideas of knowledge, Christensen [2009, 15] wrote: “In the context of a
risk society, scientific knowledge and knowledge about risks become increas-
ingly important, since knowledge is closely linked to power and control within
and over people’s lives . . . This is because science is now implicated in many
personal and collective decisions and in many cases people are compelled to
defer to scientific experts”.
With the onset of risk society imperatives on the science curriculum there
was an accompanying shift from science education for individual development
to science education for national purpose, or citizenship. Christensen [2009,
16] put it this way: “Science educators connect with these concerns through
the goal of science education for citizenship and there is now a groundswell of
support amongst many science educators for this new perspective”.
Christensen [2009, 15] looked to Aikenhead [2006] to advance her thesis
regarding the impact of risk society thinking on the national science curricu-
lum through the inclusion of such teaching/learning experiences as science and
citizenship. Aikenhead [2006, 13–14, 30, 98] showed how science education in
the US, particularly during the 21st century, responded to these imperatives.
The OECD [2006] further endorsed Christensen’s [2009, 15] thesis of the
inclusion of socio-scientific issues in school education science classrooms.
This was an essential component of its 2006 PISA assessment. In its rationale,
PISA [2006, 12] stressed the important role of science education in developing
students towards being a “reflective citizen” through a “willingness to engage
in science-related issues”.
Moreover, Christensen [2009, 15] looked to Zeidler [2007, 701] to advance
her arguments concerning the changing nature of science education in the face
of risk society imperatives: essentially, science literacy necessarily includes an
appreciation of the relationship between science and citizenship.
In situations where scientific knowledge and risk are connected, moreover,
Christensen’s [2009, 15–16] stressed that the confidence of young people to
participate in decision-making and to exert personal control in relation to
uncertainty (for example, through making sound risk assessments) may link
back to their schooling. Hence, the importance of recognising the work of
Zeidler [2007] in developing in students an understanding and of the skills,
scientific knowledge, and attitudes connected with risk, and of understanding
of the science surrounded by uncertainties, and how this constitutes new ter-
ritory for science educators.
While discussed at length in the policy and other educational literatures,
the neoliberal impact on education and its associated bearing on teaching and
learning is sparse within science education scholarship [Carter: 2005]. Indeed,
172 National curricular
in accord with Lemke [2001], Carter [2005] argued science education has not
looked enough at the impact of the changing theoretical and global landscape
by which it is produced and shaped. Science education should look beyond its
own discourses toward those like cultural studies and politics, and particularly
globalisation theory and relevant educational studies.

Globalism, risk society and the history curriculum

Our understanding of the past is highly politicised and contested as it is formed
into a national curriculum. But, this is not only the case with what politicians
consider should be taught about a nation’s past, but also the pedagogy by which
it is taught. With the dual and mutually dependent forces of globalism and risk
society beginning to weigh on the Australian Government, by the early 21st
century decisions had to be made regarding the history curriculum in Austra-
lian schools. But as Henderson and Zajda [2015, 25] commented, negotiating
the vagaries of Australian federalism is a gross difficulty for educational policy
makers.
National governments have looked to the history curriculum and its related
curriculum areas of civics and citizenship for national purposes. Singapore has
been at the forefront of these developments. Gopinathan [2013, 50] recorded
how the city-state’s “remarkable socio-political development and the changes
it seeks to implement in education are illustrative of wider debates about the
power of globalization and the capacity of states to remain viable and relevant”.
Hogan [2014, n.p.] testified to the long-standing influence of Singapore
on international school education and education systems: “For more than a
decade, Singapore, along with South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Shanghai, Hong
Kong and Finland, has been at or near the top of international leagues tables
that measure children’s ability in reading, maths and science. This has led to a
considerable sense of achievement in Finland and East Asia and endless hand-
wringing and head-scratching in the West”. Ten years earlier, Chua [2004,
1] attested to these same developments on the effects of globalisation on the
education system in Singapore, resulting, inter alia, in the decline of humanity
subjects in the school education curriculum.
Australia Day in 2006–26 January – was memorable for reasons other than
“celebrating” 218 years of Europeans in Australia. In the words of Michelle
Grattan from The Age, “in an Australia Day eve address to the National Press
Club, Mr Howard exhorted a ‘coalition of the willing’ to promote changes to
the teaching of history, which he said was neglected in schools and too often
questioned or repudiated the nation’s achievements”. Howard promoted his
ideas on the back of the Cronulla Race Riots of December 2005 [Grattan:
2006, n.p.]. Amidst at times vitriolic national quarrels about ideological views
of what constituted Australian history, a national history curriculum was estab-
lished in 2007.
Of course, Australia was not alone in its quarrels amongst the historians. The
UK has had its own [Guyver: 2012]. Schools and school education are often
 National curricular 173
the battlegrounds for history wars, and some are constantly recurring. Burack
[2014, n.p.] wrote: “The History Wars are back. At issue is the new framework
for the Advanced Placement US history program. One recent skirmish pit-
ted conservatives on the Jefferson County, Colorado, school board against a
vocal group of teachers and students in their school district”. Indeed, for this
researcher: “If the heated rhetoric is typical of what is to come, we are in for a
lot more fireworks that will be of little value to teachers, students, the public,
or the Advanced Placement program itself ”.

Analysis and conclusions

In many ways similar to border control policies set against the perceived
national disruptions of “illegal incursions”, in their push against risk society,
nations have looked to the school education curriculum to control and manage
“perceived” national risks. The use of the word “perceived” is used consciously,
because a dominant feature of the changes to school educational national cur-
ricular result not from the fact that they are occurring, but that they might
occur sometime in the future.
At the centre of these developments is the role of reflexive modernisation.
Readers will recall in the Introduction to this book I used the Russell Ward
[1952] graphic to illustrate reflexive modernity and its impact on school educa-
tion policy and risk society. Moreover, in this chapter to support my argument,
I used the Shine [2017] report concerning the use of fire management by Aus-
tralian Indigenous people over a 40,000 year period to support the reflexive
modernisation thesis. As traditional Western scientific knowledge is revised and
brought under the influence of reflexive modernisation, and “scientific truths”
are questioned, this is simply one example of how school educational cur-
ricular is being subject to change. Of course, it is not simply happening with
science curricular, but with virtually every aspect of the school education cur-
ricular in nations such as the US, the UK and Australia. Confronted with the
imperatives and countrywide anxieties of national standardised assessment pro-
grams, governments and school educational authorities respond with national
curricular guarding their economies, societies and national borders.

References
Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (2013). Editorial. Sex And Sensibil-
ity: Public School Sex Education And The Religious Right (June). Retrieved 24 March
2017 from [Link]
sensibility-public-school-sex-education-and -sensibility-public
Apple, M.W. (1982/2011). Education and power. (2nd edn) New York/London: Routledge.
Astiz, F., Wiseman, A.W. & Baker, D. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Conse-
quences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems, Comparative
Education Review, 46(1). pp. 66–88.
174 National curricular
Beck, U. (1992/2007. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Beck, U., Bonss, W. & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic,
hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society. 20(2) pp. 1–33.
Bennett, O. (2001). Cultural pessimism: Narratives of decline in the postmodern world. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh University Press.
Blaire, A. & Monk, D. (2009). Sex education and the law in England and Wales. In L. Sauer-
teig & R. Davidson (Eds) (2009). Shaping sexual knowledge: a cultural history of sex education
in twentieth century Europe. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 132–161.
Burack, J. (2014). The AP US History Wars: Is a peace process possible? Perspectives on His-
tory, American Historical Association (December). Viewpoints. Retrieved 20 Novem-
ber from [Link]/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/
december-2014/the-ap-us-history-wars.
Campbell, D. (2016). Child obesity rising again, NHS report reveals. The Guardian (3 Novem-
ber). Retrieved 5 February 2016 from [Link]/society/2016/nov/03/
child-obesity-rising-again-nhs-report-reveals.
Carr, P.R. &Thésée, G. (2008). The quest for political (i)literacy. In B. Porfilio & C. Malott
(Eds), The destructive path of neoliberalism: An international examination of education. Rotter-
dam: Sense Publishers, pp. 173–194.
Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education
reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5). pp. 561–580.
Carter, L. (2015). Globalisation, neoliberalism and science education. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Glo-
balisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. Heidelberg/New York: Springer. pp.
839–850.
Carton, A. (2005). Australasian interactions: Contested geographies of “‘White Australia’”.
Review of Facing Asia: A History of the Colombo Plan by Daniel Oakman Howard . . .
Australian Humanities Review. 35 (June).
Cha, A.E. (2015). Standing desks at schools: The solution to the childhood obesity epi-
demic? Washington Post (21 July). Retrieved 5 February 2017 from [Link].
com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/21/standing-desks-at-schools-the-solution-to-
the-childhood-obesity-epidemic/?utm_term=.4ca9d7d8883f.
Child Obesity (n.d.). Public Health England. Retrieved 5 February 2017 from [Link].
[Link]/NOO_about_obesity/child_obesity.
Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education.
45(2). pp. 205–223.
Chua, S.K.C. (2004). The convergence and divergence effects of globalisation on Singa-
pore’s education system. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Asso-
ciation for Research in Education, Melbourne (November 26-December 2).
Federal Election: 2016: Senate results. (n.d.). Australia Votes: ABC. Retrieved 9 October
2016 from [Link]/news/federal-election-2016/results/senate/.
Foucault, M. (2000). Power (Vol. 3). New York: The New Press.
Franco, K. (2017). Should climate change be taught in schools? US News (20 June). Retrieved
21 October 2017 from [Link]/news/best-states/ohio/articles/2017-06-20/
debate-heats-up-over-teaching-climate-change-in-us-schools.
Franklin J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Franklin (Ed.) The politics of risk society. Institute for
Public Policy Research (London, England). London. Polity Press, pp. 6–21.
Furedi, F. (1997/2006). Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation (2nd Edn.).
London: Cassell
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile.
 National curricular 175
Goldenburg, S. (2013). Climate change included in US science teaching guidelines for the
first time. The Guardian (10 April). Retrieved 9 October 2016 from [Link].
com/environment/2013/apr/09/climate-change-us-science-teaching.
Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education pol-
icy: a thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 5(1), pp. 53–70.
Gopinathan, S. (2013). Education and the nation state: the selected works of S. Gopinathan.
Oxon.: Routledge.
Grattan, M. [2006]. Howard claims victory in national culture wars. The Age (January 26).
Retrieved 20 September 2014 from [Link]/news/national/pm-claims-vic
tory-in-culture-wars/2006/01/25/[Link].
Guyver. R. (2012). The History Working Group and beyond: a case study in the UK’s
History quarrels. In T. Taylor & R. Guyver (Eds.). History wars and the classroom: global
perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 132–156.
Harris, C. & Marsh, C. J. (2005). Analysing Curriculum Change: some reconceptualised
approaches. In C. Harris & C. Marsh (Eds.), Curriculum developments in Australia: promising
initiatives, impasses and dead-ends. Adelaide: Open Book, pp. 77–121.
Hasham, N. (2016). Federal election 2016: Potential One Nation senator wants climate scep-
ticism taught in schools. Sydney Morning Herald (5 July). Retrieved 9 October 2016 from
[Link]/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-poten
tial-one-nation-senator-wants-climate-scepticism-taught-in-schools-20160705-gpytok.
html.
Henderson, D. (2015). Globalisation and national curriculum reform in Australia: The push
for Asia literacy. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. Hei-
delberg/New York. Springer. pp. 633–648.
Henderson, D. & Zajda, J. (2015). The National Curriculum and history school textbooks
in Australia and the Russian Federation. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Globalisation, ideology and politics
of education reforms. Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 451–495.
Hickman, L. (2011). Welsh schools to receive climate change education pack. The Guardian
(20 September). Retrieved 9 October 2016 from [Link]/environment/
blog/2011/sep/20/wales-climate-change-schools-education.
Hickman, L. (2013) Climate change will still not be taught in English primary schools. The
Guardian (9 July). Retrieved 9 October 2016 from [Link]/environment/
blog/2013/jul/08/climate-change-geography-national-curriculum.
Hogan, D. (2014). Why is Singapore’s school system so successful, and is it a model for the West?
The Conversation (12 February). Retrieved 12 October 2016 from [Link]
com/why-is-singapores-school-system-so-successful-and-is-it-a-model-for-the-west-22917.
Jackson, A. (2017). American schools teach climate change differently in every state – except
these 19. Business Insider Australia (8 June). Retrieved 21 October 2017 from [Link]
[Link]/states-using-next-generation-science-standards-2017-6?r=US&IR=T.
Jensen, B., Weidmann, B. & Farmer, J.B. (2013). The myth of markets in school educa-
tion, Grattan Institute. Retrieved 12 September 2017 from [Link]
content/uploads/2014/04/myth_of_markets_in_school_education.pdf.
Kellow, A. (n.d). The politics of climate change: problem definition, precaution and the
international policy process. Acola. Retrieved 9 October 2016 from [Link]/
[Link].
Law, B. (2017). Moral Panic 101: Equality, Acceptance and the Safe Schools Scandal.
Quarterly Essay. (67). Retrieved 9 December 2017 from [Link]/
essay/2017/09/moral-panic-101.
176 National curricular
Lee, M.H. & Gopinathan, S. (2015). Inculcating national identity and economic competi-
tiveness: a comparative study of curriculum reforms in Singapore and Hong Kong. In J.
Zajda (Ed.) Globalisation, ideology and politics of education reforms. Heidelberg/New York.
Springer, pp. 354–391.
Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science educa-
tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, pp. 296–316.
Lingard, B. & Rizvi, F. (1998). Globalization and the fear of homogenization in education.
Change Transformations in Education, 1, pp. 62–71.
Lowe, K. & Yunkaporta, T. (2015). The inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
content in the Australian National Curriculum: a cultural, cognitive and socio-political
evaluation. Curriculum Perspectives. 33(1). pp. 1–14. Retrieved 22 February 2017 from
[Link]/pages/images/KLowe_article%20(2).pdf.
Marginson, S. (1999). After globalisation: emerging politics of education. Journal of Educa-
tional Policy. 14(1). pp. 19–31.
Marginson, S. & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher
education: a glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education. 43. pp. 281–309.
Martin S. (2016). Safe Schools program: federal government unveils changes. The Australian
(18 March). Retrieved 25 March 2017 from [Link]/national-affairs/
education/safe-schools-program-federal-government-unveils-changes/news-story/
ce2d4751b2068f6b3ecedede317954fd.
Namukasa, I. (2004). School mathematics in the era of globalization. Retrieved 21 Feb-
ruary 2017 from [Link]
[Link].
Oakman, D. (2004) Facing Asia: A history of the Colombo Plan. Canberra: ANU E-Press.
OECD (Organisation of Economic & Cultural Development) (2006). Assessing scientific,
reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved 12 April 2017
from [Link].
O’Neill, M. & Chapman, A. (2015). Globalisation, internationalisation and English lan-
guage: studies of education in Singapore, Malaysia and Australia. Education Research and
Perspectives. 42. pp. 1–24.
’Pells, R. (2017). Sex education to be made compulsory in all schools in England, gov-
ernment confirms. Independent. (1 March). Retrieved 24 March 2017 from www.
[Link]/news/education/education-news/sex-relationships-education-made-
[Link].
Phillips, L. (2000). Risk, reflexivity and democracy: Mediating expert knowledge in the
news. Nordicom Review. 21(2). pp. 115–135.
Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra: a nation building state changes its mind. Mel-
bourne: Cambridge University Press.
Quigley, C. (2009). Globalization and science education: the implications for indigenous
knowledge systems. International Educational Studies. 2(1). pp. 76–86.
Rhodes, D., Nicholas, L., Jones, T.W. & Rawlings, V. (2016). Safe Schools review findings:
experts respond, The Conversation. (18 March). Retrieved 10 December 2017 from
[Link]
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing educational policy. London: Routledge.
Rodwell, G. (2016). Safe Schools: challenges to moral panic and risk society theories: the
politics of national school educational policy, Discourse Journal of Educational Research
(August), 2(1). pp. 15–23.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Moral panics and school educational policy. New York/London: Routledge.
 National curricular 177
Ryan, S. & Bramston, T. (eds) (2003). The Hawke Government: a critical retrospective. North
Melbourne: Pluto Press.
Sexual Information and Education Council of the Unites States (n.d.). In Good Company:
Who Supports Comprehensive Sexuality Education? Retrieved 24 March 2017 from
[Link]/[Link]?fuseaction=[Link]&PageID=1198.
Shine, R. (2017). Scientists tracing ancient Aboriginal fire practices on remote Tasmanian
island unearth fresh timelines. ABC News (11 September). Retrieved 13 September
2017 from [Link]/news/2017-09-11/scientists-tracing-ancient-aboriginal-
fire-practice-on-tasmania/8891626.
Sorace, D. (2015). New York Times (Opinion). (1 May). Retrieved 24 March 2017 from www.
[Link]/roomfordebate/2015/04/28/whats-the-best-way-to-teach-sex-ed-today/
sex-ed-belongs-in-schools.
Sturges, K.M. (Ed.) (2015). Neoliberalizing educational reform: America’s quest for profitable
market-colonies and the undoing of public good, Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense.
The politics of teaching climate science (2016). Living on Earth (20 May). Retrieved 9 October
2016 from [Link]
ID=3.
Turner, D. & Yolcu, H. (2014). Preface. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds) Neoliberal educational
reforms: critical analysis. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 3–7.
Ward, R. (1952). Man makes history. Sydney: Shakespeare Head Press.
Weather and climate change. (n.d.). Education Scotland. Retrieved 9 October 2016 from
[Link]/weatherandclimatechange/.
Whitehouse, H. (2013). Teaching climate change to the young. The Conversation (4 July).
Retrieved 9 October 2016 from [Link]
to-the-young-13538.
Wolfram, C. (2014). The UK needs a revolution in the way maths is taught. Here’s why . . .
The Guardian (23 February). Retrieved 17 March 2017 from [Link]/
education/2014/feb/23/maths-teaching-revolution-needed-conrad-wolfram.
Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. In S. Abell & N. Leder-
man (Ed.) Handbook of research on science education. New York: Routledge, pp. 697–726.
8 Teachers, universities and
teacher preparation

Introduction
In the face of the relentless forces of globalism and risk society, UNESCO
might, for example, urge a greater consideration by governments and edu-
cational authorities for elements of indigenous culture partly to fill the void
created through reflexive modernity on changing school education policy in
respect to teaching standards and teacher preparation, and the OECD might,
for example, push for international standards and comparisons through the
nation’s achievements in PISA scores. All of this has been in the name of a drive
to improve the quality of teaching in school education in the face of perceived
challenges to a nation’s wellbeing.
Inter alia, this translated into national governments “muscling” in on teacher
preparation policy in universities, wherever they were able. Risk society
ensured sufficient national moral panics for this to be so, not least was the pub-
lication in 1983 under President Ronald Reagan’s authority of A nation at risk:
the imperative for educational reform.
As national governments responded to perceived international imperatives
in teacher preparation and the maintenance of professional standards, some
academics, journalists and teacher unions responded negatively to this increased
national control over their work in respect to what they believed were adverse
effects on their students.
As had occurred a century earlier, the accompanying drive towards ever-
increasing national use of standardised assessment was accompanied by a return
to a new scientific management, in the new globalised theatre of teaching with
its songsheet of neoliberal “reform”. As a part of these developments, came a
shift from educational administration to managerialism.

School principals and teachers as managerialism

We should reflect again on Furedi’s [1997/2006] account of the school princi-
pal’s managerialism in assuring Furedi’s of his child’s safety at school. This point
illustrates perfectly a shift occurring in school education from an administra-
tional paradigm to a managerial paradigm.
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 179
Peters et al. [2000, 109] wrote: “The restructuring of state education systems
in many Western countries during the last two decades has involved a signifi-
cant shift away from the emphasis on administration and policy to an emphasis
on management”. Moreover, the public administration developments from the
late 1970s led to a revolutionary change not only in the manner of delivery of
school educational and government expenditures, but also in the structures of
governance. “These reforms towards marketisation, or the application of busi-
ness management theories and practices in public service administration, came
to be called, in professional parlance, the New Public Management (NPM)”
[Tolofari: 2005, 75].
Responding to the dual drives of globalism and neoliberalism, Peters, et al
[2000] argued:

[NPM] . . . has been influential in the United Kingdom, Australia, Can-

ada, and New Zealand. These theories and models have been used both as
the legitimating basis and instrumental means for redesigning state educa-
tional bureaucracies, educational institutions, and even the public policy
process.

We might add the US to Peters, et al’s list of countries, and here following
Furedi’s [1997/2006] lead, connect NPM to risk society.
In researching “NPM and the dynamics of education policy and practice in
Europe”, Gunter, et al [2016, 180] state their “readings of current educational
research and analysis indicates a tendency to focus away from the nation-state
towards supranational entities such as the EU, where policy flows are carried
and influenced by policy actors to, within and from supranational ‘organiza-
tions’ such as the OECD”. Admittedly, nation states will remain, but will be
“doing things differently, where there is a need to give recognition to how
change has impacted” [Gunter, et al: 2016, 180]. In support of their conclu-
sions, the authors cited Beck [2006, 2] and risk society theory, who identi-
fied this “out-of-state” analysis as breaking from “a territorial prison theory of
identity, society and politics”, wherein “the result was a system of nation-states
and corresponding national sociologies that define their specific societies in
terms of concepts associated with the nation-state” [Beck: 2006, 2, cited in
Gunter, et al: 2016, 180].
Meanwhile, as the dynamics of educational policy development, aided by
NPM, are influenced by international organisations such as the OECD –
and bearing in mind back home accounting and regulators are an integral
part of NPM across public sectors – we come to understand the vital role of
these national accounting and regulators have in controlling and managing
any associated moral panics. This is often managed in the face of risk society
imperatives, with national attacks on standards of teacher preparation, and
classroom teaching standards springing to mind as an example, as national
regulatory bodies are established to manage these possible and perceived
events [Lee: 2012].
180 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
Monitoring international standards in teacher preparation
Faced with school educational issues of risk society in terms of teacher prepa-
ration, UNESCO spoke out in support of standards of teacher preparation
courses in universities including in their courses traditional indigenous knowl-
edge. The organisation warned: “Sophisticated knowledge of the natural world
is not confined to science. Human societies all across the globe have developed
rich sets of experiences and explanations relating to the environments they live
in” [Fien: n.d., n.p.]. Moreover, this knowledge encompassed:

the sophisticated arrays of information, understandings and interpretations

that guide human societies around the globe in their innumerable interac-
tions with the natural milieu: in agriculture and animal husbandry; hunt-
ing, fishing and gathering; struggles against disease and injury; naming and
explanation of natural phenomena; and strategies to cope with fluctuating
environments.
[Fien: n.d., n.p.]

Of course, this is simply another example of reflexive modernisation, “second

modernity”, which lies at the core of this book. UNESCO accompanied this
publication with another, more specifically addressing issues associated with
risk society, teacher preparation, reflexive modernity and reflective teachers
[UNESCO: 2005].
UNESCO [2005, 133] addressed issues associated with “knowledge as a risk
panacea”, with a view to “foresight and disaster anticipation”. Severely ques-
tioning issues associated with “reform” and “progress”, teachers and teachers-
in-training were warned “confronting the instability and insecurity that are
often the social and political consequences of scientific progress and techno-
logical innovation is one of the challenges that knowledge societies will have
to meet”. With technological and scientific “progress” come risks. Particularly,
“risks are not equal and some are unacceptable” [UNESCO [2005, 133]. And
teachers needed to be alert to, and trained in “big picture risks”, such as those
confronting curriculum change in risk society obsessed nations. Not surpris-
ingly, university teacher preparation courses required increased government
surveillance.
Even by 1970, the OECD was biting into teacher preparation programs.
Americans were being told of the 1970 reform of Finland’s education system
which mandated that all teachers above the kindergarten level have at least a
master’s degree. Today that country’s students have the highest mathematics
and science literacy, as measured by the PISA scores, of all the OECD member
countries [Strauss: 2010].
PISA scores became the benchmark for school educational global markets;
with researchers increasingly noting the importance of the global market and
its effects on formal schooling. In particular for teachers and teachers in train-
ing: “Teachers’ autonomy, independence, and control over their work is being
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 181
reduced while workplace knowledge and control find their way increasingly in
hands of administrators” [Tatto: 2007b, 13].
By the first decade of the 21st century, internationally, the PISA assess-
ment had risen to strategic prominence in the international education policy
discourse. Sponsored, organised and administered by the OECD, PISA was
well on its way to being institutionalised as the main engine in the global
accountability regime, and at the same time driving school educational policy
as nations increasingly responded to risk society. Meyer and Benavot [2013]
scrutinised the role of PISA in the emerging regime of global educational
governance, severely questioning the presumption that the quality of a nation’s
school system can be evaluated through a standardised assessment that is insen-
sitive to vast cultural and institutional global diversity. Indeed, this study raised
the question of whether PISA’s dominance in the global educational discourse
runs the risk of engendering an unprecedented process of worldwide edu-
cational standardisation for the sake of hitching schools more tightly to the
bandwagon of economic efficiency, while sacrificing their role to prepare stu-
dents for independent thinking and civic participation. Perhaps, this is another
outcome of nations using PISA scores to offset risk society anxieties.
Increasingly, the OECD weighed heavily on teacher preparation programs.
Citing evidence from the OECD [2011a; 2011b], Asia Society [2013], the
World Bank [2013] and Tatto [2007a], Hulme [2016, 37] argued: “In the past
decade . . . teacher education has assumed greater significance in global educa-
tion policy. Strategies to improve education outcomes have increasingly focused
on improving teachers’ learning, leading to national reviews of teacher educa-
tion”. Hulme [2016, 37] referred to the range of global developments aiming at
increasing control over teachers’ work and performance, “while simultaneously
emphasising teachers’ knowledge and discretion”. International organisations
such as the OECD combined with global policy entrepreneurs in promoting
policies relating to core themes:

• the quality of entrants;

• practicum enhancement;
• the imperative of career-long teacher learning;
• school leadership; the use of evidence, including research, to inform
improvement.
[Hulme: 2016, 37]

Significant examination of standards of teacher education, often associated with

moral panics, is not new [Rodwell, 2017].

Globalism and teacher preparation

Clearly, over recent decades globalism has strongly influenced teacher prepara-
tion, however, the terrain is challenging, unpredictable and ruthlessly fickle.
The problem here, for society and school educators in particular, is a global
182 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
market economy is both de-socialised and inherently unstable: witness the
immediate aftermath of Trump’s election as president, when international free
trade agreements were thrown in disarray. Despite the attempts of interna-
tional capital to re-order labour and politics to serve such an economy, the
consequent global order does not constitute a social system capable of provid-
ing a context for personal or social development over an extended period.
Indeed, “the world of markets does not constitute a social system, but rather a
field of strategic action in which actors strive to use an uncontrolled and even
unknown environment” [Touraine: 2000, 27]. In fact, “change replaces order
as the framework for analysis and social action, because the field of strate-
gic action is a constantly changing set of possibilities, opportunities and risks”
[Touraine: 2000, 27]. Politicians and educational policy people have long rec-
ognised market-driven global economies wherein the drive for money and
continuous innovation provides an inherently unstable context for school edu-
cation and teacher education – an anarchy of risk.
Others, however, point to another facet of globalisation, and one with
which many teachers in the US, UK and Australia can readily identify. Jansen
[2007, 25] contended: “[T]he effect of globalization has not only been in the
economic domain, but also on the social and cultural content of nation-states,
within and outside the developing world”. Indeed, they are likely to recognise:
“Whole societies are being formatted on a globalized grid that has transformed
everything from music, art and culture to curriculum, pedagogy and assess-
ment. . . . In terms of education, globalization has redefined how we teach,
what we teach, where we teach, whom we teach – and even whether we teach”
[Jansen: 2007, 25].
Tatto [2007c] endorsed Jensen’s conclusions, showing how as nations attempt
to become competitive in the global market and try to shape their education
systems to provide those skills needed in the growing global economy eco-
nomic globalisation forces strongly influences current trends toward interna-
tional accountability and standards adoption. Utilising a variety of research
methodologies in a diversity of nation states, rigorous research is continuing
to uncover the important role of effective teachers on student learning. Now,
demonstrated by national government organisations – such as in Australia with
AITSL – global and national policy increasingly points to teachers as a major
factor on increasing learning and quality.
“Teacher education is under scrutiny in virtually every country”, Bates
[2010, 41] pointed out. Certainly, much has to do with global influences where
school education “is seen by both individuals and states as a crucial factor in
obtaining positional advantage in an increasingly integrated and competitive
global economy” [Bates: 2010, 41]. There are however, additional forces at
work with “increasing flows of ideas and people across national boundaries are
subjecting traditional cultures to scrutiny and comparison” [Bates: 2010, 41].
Globalism brings with it more than simply responses to international stan-
dardised test scores, or challenges to economic hegemony: “Education sys-
tems are frequently subject to demands to combine technical and economic
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 183
innovation on the one hand with social and cultural conservation on the other”
[Bates: 2010, 41]. For Bates [2010, 41], these international influences bring
into question severe issues regarding the provision and preparation of teachers,
where “quality defined as both ‘technical competence’ and ‘socially acceptable
values’”.
At this point, we are reminded of how in the past educational authorities,
not simply through their training institutions in the form of teachers’ col-
leges, but through various institutional policies and practices such as dress codes
sought to stamp specific “socially acceptable values” on trainee teachers and
teachers generally [Rodwell: 2003]. Rodwell [2003] had argued these drives
were underpinned very strongly by the principles and practices of scientific
management; through Moran’s [2015] research on the resurgence of scientific
management in school educational policy and practice, this further illustrates
the continuing influence of scientific management on school education.
Sandwiched between the two great steering mechanisms of markets and
money on one side, and culture and tradition on the other, as with education
more generally, teacher education needs a defensible theory that celebrates its
contribution to the relative autonomy of individuals and education systems
from both markets and traditions. In short, teacher education is about more
than simply preparing students for the teaching profession.
As recent discourse in, for example, Australia, is further impacted by global-
ism, “most systems are preoccupied with pragmatic issues of enrolment and
graduation; length of preparation; comparability of standards; mutual recogni-
tion; portability of qualifications and intercultural education” [Bates: 2010, 41].
Underpinning these points is the Australian Government’s newly introduced
policy of literacy and numeracy testing for initial teacher education students
[Teacher Quality . . ., n.d.).
In a trial run through of the test in late 2015, Australian students enjoyed
only moderate success where “nine out of 10 participants in a national pilot
of the test conducted earlier this year passed the exam. Of the 5000 education
students who sat the pilot test across the country . . . 92 per cent passed the
literacy section and 90 per cent passed the numeracy section” [Knott, 2015,
n.p.]. “The bad news”, however, was “that almost 2000 new teachers each year
appear to have been graduating with substandard basic literacy and numeracy
skills” [Knott, 2015, n.p.].

A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform

Risk society imperatives placed university teacher preparation courses under
increased challenges. While recent research indicates the difficulty of making
comparisons across countries, and warn policymakers of hasty decisions, gener-
ally, teacher preparation in universities and teachers’ professional development
in schools are facing increasing challenges [Blömeke, Houang, Hsieh & Wang:
2018]. These challenges, however, can be traced back to the 1980s with the
onset of risk society.
184 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform is the 1983 report of Amer-
ican President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Edu-
cation. Its publication is considered a landmark event in modern American
educational history. Inter alia, the report contributed to the ever-growing asser-
tion that American schools were failing, and it touched off a wave of local, state
and federal reform efforts. As we have seen in this present study, the impera-
tives of risk society thinking on educational policy precipitated a moral panic
[Rodwell: 2017].
Thirty years later, calling for “reform” in standards of teacher preparation,
Sinquefield [2013] continued to support the report and its call for national
standards in teacher preparation and development. Two years earlier, in his
eight years as chancellor of New York City’s school system, the nation’s larg-
est, Klein “learned a few painful lessons of his own”. He stated: “In the three
decades since A nation at risk came out, many have echoed its cries of alarm, but
few have heeded its calls for bold change” [Klein: 2011, n.p.].
Klein, indeed, was influential. In May2011 he was in Canberra, where he
was as a guest of the Federal Government, with soon-to-be Prime Minis-
ter, Julia Gillard, who was Minister for Education. He was a guest speaker at
the National Press Club. He was particularly influential in Gillard’s choice of
NAPLAN and MySchool [Trembath: 2011]. The same year as his Canberra visit,
Klein had written of the struggle for the New York City to lift its standards
of teaching preparation to avert national risks: “But most of all, it required
building community and political support”, and an apparently never-ending
struggle against sectional interests [Klein: 2011, n.p.].

A return to scientific management

Whereas, the first wave of influence of scientific management on schools had
been driven by the efficiency dynamic, as with those risk society forces impact-
ing on second-generation national standardised testing, this second wave of sci-
entific management in school education was driven by factors generated from
risk society thinking, neoliberalism and globalism; here forced by the media
and politics, moral panics abounded, as school education systems attempted to
rein in perceived risks. The possibility of moral panics and risks seemed to be
at almost every turn.
Moran’s [2015] research showed how the April 1983 publication of A nation
at risk was a watershed moment in this second wave of scientific management,
swinging US educational administration sharply to the right, and insisting on
demonstrable outcomes, and accountability. Moran [2015] looked to Eisner’s
[1997] research arguing: “In time of crisis, when the perceived risks involved in
education becomes more apparent, the educational system – already relatively
conservative – becomes increasingly conservative” [Moran: 2015, 67]. Under
these circumstances, the politically contrived moral panic, also often comes
into play.
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 185
In this context in the US, “the perceived risk has shifted from losing our
prominent position in the global economy to something much more parochial –
assuring that students, teachers, schools, and school districts perform suffi-
ciently well on standardised tests to meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) goals
and avoid sanctions from the state” [Moran: 2015, 67]. The whole of language
curriculum and pedagogy, OBE and open-plan pedagogy were brought to an
end in so many US educational jurisdictions. Under the previous progressive
regimes, a common catchcry vis-à-vis testing and assessment had been “test-
ing time is good teaching time”, and now this had taken a sharp turn to the
right, and had been changed to “if it isn’t tested, it isn’t taught”. “In pursuing
this [latter] goal, school district bureaucrats have applied principles of scien-
tific management to restructure the school day, refashion curriculum priorities
and promote great standardisation of materials, methodology and assessment”
[Moran: 2015, 67]. Consequently, there was a much greater emphasis on teach-
ing “the basics” of literacy and numeracy.
By the beginning of the 21st century educational “reforms” under the ban-
ner of globalism had reached into vast numbers of countries. “The ideology
of globalism is neoliberalism”, wrote Turner and Yolcu [2014, xiv]. Referred
to in Chapter 4, during this period, the highly influential Chubb and Moe’s
[1990] Politics, markets and America’s schools, appeared. This was in the US, but
in fact the detail varied little in Thatcher’s UK and with Australia’s Hawke-
Keating Government. Assisting moral panics concerning school education dur-
ing the time of the Thatcher government was a conflict of ideologies between
many of the professional educators and many of the political elites and moral
entrepreneurs, between the neoliberals and their centralism, and the left-wing
LEAs (local education authorities) which across postwar UK were traditionally
responsible for managing state education [Exley & Ball: 2014, 17].
Darder [2015, xiii] wrote of how in the US neoliberalism “reforms” in educa-
tion brought with them “racializing consequences”. As if to placate any accom-
panying moral panic or anxieties, this is done in quasi-corporate language,
where words and metaphors such as “stakeholders” flourish, and where “these
‘stakeholders’ are seen as consumers of education (as a product), rather than
co-creators of knowledge or cultural citizens in the process of enacting their
democratic rights”, linking school education “to corporate interests and the
needs of the labor market”.
Not only could the politics of school education standards drive a moral panic
as it responded to the perceived imperatives of national risks associated with
an internationally non-competitive national economy, while highly politicised,
it could act as wedge politics, harnessing the political support of the working
class to conservative governments, while at the same time pitting the “aver-
age voter” against the “Lefty crazies”, or professional educators. According to
Wagg [1996] this is exactly what the UK John Major Conservative Govern-
ment attempted in the early 1990s. John Howard’s Coalition Government in
Australia attempted a repeat of this.
186 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
National governments respond to international imperatives
in teacher preparation
In the UK there was considerable pushback by some sections of the com-
munity and by teachers, academics and their unions against increased national
control over the work of teachers in schools. Writing for the Association of
Teachers and Lecturers, and citing evidence from a Times Educational Supple-
ment (TES) written by John Slater in 2003 declared: “central control damages
teaching: there’s too much evidence on ‘narrow’ test results, says the national
commissioner” [J. Slater: 2003, 12 December, cited in Bassey: 2005, 35].
Slater [2003, cited in Bassey: 2005, 35] claimed: “The centralisation of
decision-making power has reduced teachers’ ability to respond to the needs of
the most challenging pupils, according to the National Commission on Educa-
tion”. Indeed, Slater [2003] reported Sir John Cassells, director of the commis-
sion, as stating: “The concentration by ministers on short-term improvements
has damaged teacher professionalism and led to too much emphasis being
placed on ‘narrow’ test results”. For Cassells, “if there is one over-arching mes-
sage that keeps coming through, it is this: the concentration of educational
decision-making at the centre has led to a situation where ‘command and con-
trol’ dominates, and this has now reached a point where it is seriously counter
productive” [J. Slater: 2003, 12 December, cited in Bassey: 2005, 35].
But, yet, what teachers and certain sections of the community wanted, and
what influential academics, policy bureaucrats and national governments sought in
response to risk society imperatives could be totally different. For instance, in the
US, Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Edu-
cation at Stanford University, California, writing in the influential Phi Delta Kappan,
wrote how reform based on standardised test results and international comparisons,
“in a global era” made it imperative that “teachers must have the preparation and
skills to teach students to the highest standards” [Darling-Hammond: 2005, 237].
In Australia, AITSL was established in January 2010 and is funded by the
Australian Government. While the organisation acts on behalf of all of Austra-
lia’s Education Ministers – state, territory and federal – it is, nevertheless, not a
government department. It is a company limited by guarantee, governed by an
independent Board of Directors. The Australian Government, as represented
by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, is the sole
member of the company [AITSL: 2013].
In a federalist system with its vast layers of interlacing self-interests, the estab-
lishment of AITSL marked a significant step in encouraging – some might
argue, coercing – state and territory governments to adopt national standards
in teacher preparation and professional development.
Documentation supporting AITSL’s involvement in the development of a
national approach to quality professional experience can be found in the recent
Action now: classroom ready teachers report [2014] by the Teacher Education Minis-
terial Advisory Group (TEMAG). Just to what extent in practical terms does the
TEMAG policy impact on each state and territory? This is determined by fed-
eralism, but by 2017 its impact was quite noticeable. Depending on their own
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 187
policies, this process varies with each state and territory, but is overseen by the
Australasian Teacher Regulatory Authorities (ATRA) which is the incorporated
association established by the teacher registration and accreditation authorities
across Australia and New Zealand. According to its own website [ATRA, n.d.,
n.p.] “ATRA was established to facilitate cooperation and collaboration across
the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions in the regulation of the teaching
profession. It was formally recognised by MCEETYA in May 2005”.
Inter alia, the publication of Action now demonstrated a lifting of entry stan-
dards for undergraduate teacher education courses and improved processes such
as the practicum, and a national assessment framework. Across Australian univer-
sities by 2017, these had been implemented, and various stakeholders applauded
these developments. For example, the Association of Heads of Independent
Schools of Australia (AHISA) through Phillip Heath, Head of Sydney’s Barker
College, declared: “‘The TEMAG report sets out a clear case for a national, col-
laborative effort to reform teacher education’”, the AHISA was reported Heath
as stating. The AHISA continued: “Many of its recommendations can be trans-
lated into practical steps for implementation” [AHISA: 2015, n.p.]. Moreover,
the “development of a national assessment framework for pre-service teachers
will be welcomed by schools . . . A framework would be a valuable support to
schools in their role in the assessment of pre-service teachers during practicum
placements” [AHISA: 2015, n.p.].

Risk, individualisation and education

Risk society imperatives take on new dimensions in the neoliberal context,
especially as we address issues of risk, individualisation and education, now
“stripped of its broader cultural and morals context, ‘desocialized’, ‘unleashed’,
and, subsequently, transformed into consumer-driven action” [Ward: 2012,
197]. Witness the associated personal risk associated with broader market
forces compelling young people to own and subsequently engage in covert cell
(mobile) phone behaviour at school. In the words of Ward [2012, 197]: “In the
new neoliberal model of risk management individuals are called on to engage in
‘a new prudentialism’ [O’Malley: 1992] in order to evaluate continuously their
own risks in everyday life that may put his or her education or future livelihood
at risk”. Of course, the cell (mobile) phone example suggests a host of other
risks challenging risk society imperatives, many of which lead to criminality, and
vastly increased cost to governments through such institutions as the social jus-
tice system, for young people in their school education, but many cluster around
the new technology, such as the use of violent video games, or pornography.

Risk-taking becomes a pedagogical tool

Encouraging risk-taking in learning begins with examples set by teachers, not
only in the classroom, but also in their multiple roles in the wider community.
Blasé and Blasé [1999, 129] noted: “In many schools, teachers are developing
188 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
a collaborative practice of teaching which includes coaching, reflection, group
investigation of data, study teams, and risk-laden explorations to solve prob-
lems”. Encouraging students’ risk-taking is deemed to be important on several
levels. This was all about educating students to adapt to a world of risk.
Through their learning and developmental theories, during the 1960s and
1970s, Jerome Bruner’s and Jean Piaget’s learning and pedagogical theories,
assisted in popularising risk-taking as a pedagogical strategy. Moore [2012, 4–5]
detailed how these assisted in breaking down so-called behaviourist theories
typically represented by operant conditioning theorists such as B.F. Skinner.
“Unlike Skinner, whose theory often seems to present the learner as malleable
material on whom the teacher must work, Piaget’s enduring legacy to edu-
cational theory is the assertion that human beings are, from early childhood,
active, independent meaning-makers who ‘construct’ knowledge rather than
simply ‘receive’ and ‘store’” it. For Piagetian theory, a learner’s interaction with
physical and social environments was vitally important in the learning process,
“a fundamentally interactive process involving acts of what Piaget describes as
assimilation and accommodation” [Moore: 2012, 5] (emphasis in original).
This interaction with the learner’s physical and social environment included
a teacher enhancing the learner’s values, skills and knowledge in regard to
the development of risk-taking behaviours. For example, some authors argue
risk-taking is a vitally important pedagogical tool in the English as a Second
Language (ESL) classroom [Cervantes: 2013, 433]. “Even though risk taking
does not equal learning, it is a personality asset strongly related to ultimate sec-
ond language learning success”. Consequently, Cervantes [2013] contended if
risk-takers seek more opportunities to use the target language, it can be argued
they will learn more and improve their language proficiency significantly. The
underlying pedagogy here is that “when students speak, they test out their
hypotheses about the language. They struggle to make themselves understood
and are in a constant process of negotiation and reformulation of output” [Cer-
vantes: 2013, 433]. Thus, ESL teachers should guide students in this trial-and-
error process through their encouragement “to take risks, by providing them
with contexts in which learners can take risks, and by helping learners develop
a positive attitude towards errors . . . If learning is the result of taking risks, then
risk taking is worth trying”. One suspects, this same principle would apply
to most areas of the school education curriculum. Certainly, researchers are
devoting themselves to enhancing risk-taking behaviours in preschool children
[Burnard, et al: 2014, 244].

Students’ risk-taking contributes to capitalist society

and economy
Through encouraging students’ risk-taking, school education also promotes
entrepreneurialism, increasingly considered to be highly desirable by national
governments. In a drive to establish this point, D’Mello [2016, n.p.] reported
in the Sydney Morning Herald how “more and more Australian schools have
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 189
introduced specialised entrepreneurship programs to give students the skills to
cope in a changing world”. D’Mello [2016, n.p.] described how in Brisbane’s
St Paul’s School twins Samantha and Kaitlin Stanton and another friend “took
the entrepreneurial plunge” while in Year 11 in December 2013 and started
Miss Mixed Cupcakes. When D’Mello [2016, n.p.] wrote her article the girls
were 18 years old and had been running their cupcake business for almost 3
years. “The business started with Instagram photos being posted of the cup-
cakes and it has grown from there”, D’Mello [2016, n.p.] reported Kaitlin as
saying. Social media was an important ingredient to the success of the venture:
“With initial funding from their family, they set up the culinary business with
a Facebook page and showed their products at the local Sunday markets. Two
months later, they set up their website through which they take orders”.
While in the US, [Link] in its 14 April blog moaned about the lack
of entrepreneurship in the nation’s schools: “While society innovates, our K-12
schools have remained stagnant. As a result, they are not graduating the doers,
makers and cutting-edge thinkers the world needs” – no risk-takers in a nation
priding itself on this very principle. [Why schools should teach entrepreneur-
ship 2015, n.p.] The blog conceded: “Some public and private schools are
modernizing – having students work in groups to solve problems, learn online
and integrate science with the arts” [Why schools should teach entrepreneur-
ship 2015, n.p.]. Most institutions, however, “do not teach what should be the
centerpiece of a contemporary education: entrepreneurship, the capacity to
not only start companies but also to think creatively and ambitiously”.
Often in conjunction with universities or business organisations, in Australia
and the UK many educational authorities, in various ways encourage entre-
preneurialism and risk-taking in school education. For example, in a drive to
stimulate “entrepreneurial mind-sets and skills through a structured learning
environment for high school students”, the University of Adelaide sponsors
the Australian eChallenge in Schools, an annual event based on the belief that
“education should develop awareness of entrepreneurship from an early age”
[Australian eChallenge in Schools: n.d., n.p.]. Further, “introducing young
people to entrepreneurship develops their initiative and helps them to be more
creative and self-confident in whatever they undertake” [Australian eChallenge
in Schools: n.d., n.p.].
In a like vein, in 2016 the University of Leeds sponsored an international
conference on entrepreneurship in education exploring the “explicit political
agenda both at the national level and at the EU level to promote entrepreneur-
ship education at all levels of the school system” [3E Conference: 2016, n.p.].
The conference explored the point policymakers expect, with “entrepreneurial
skills to be the key to enhancing an innovative culture, which in turn will result
in higher competitiveness and economic growth” [3E Conference: 2016, n.p.].
Moreover, “in order to achieve these objectives it is important that educational
systems and methods move from traditional to creative, interactive and student-
centred educational models that will help change student mindset and prepare
students for the challenges of the future” [3E Conference: 2016, n.p.].
190 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
International researchers set about researching how school education sys-
tems respond to these national imperatives, so much so that Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development devoted its 2008 edition to this very topic.
Here, inter alia, Fuchs, Werner and Wallau [2008, 380] concluded: “The results
presented clearly suggest that schools do not succeed very well in present-
ing self-employment as an attractive alternative to dependent work”. This was
despite the “Agenda for Entrepreneurship the European Commission call[ing]
upon the member states to take a holistic approach towards entrepreneurship
education, e.g. by explicitly integrating enterprise education into their school
curricula” [Fuchs, Werner & Wallau: 2008, 380]
Fuchs, Werner and Wallau [2008, 380] also claimed, “in the wake of the
increasing attention given to entrepreneurship education in recent years”, there
were some “promising programmes aiming at encouraging an entrepreneur-
ial attitude amongst the pupils have been set up both at national level and in
the federal states”. Sweden set a distinctive benchmark. Here, “the govern-
ment recently passed a National Programme for Entrepreneurship which is
to complement and support the numerous regional and local initiatives in the
country” [Fuchs, Werner & Wallau: 2008, 380].
Of course, this drive for the development of entrepreneurship knowledge, skills
and attitudes in young people does not come without some personal, social and
even national cost, or at least potentially so. Bialostock and Kamberelis, [2014, 61]
put it this way: “Yet there is a tension between individualized self-interest required
to become the ‘best’ – entrepreneurial selves who are told they have a moral duty
both to ‘responsibilize’ and invest in themselves as rational choice actors . . .”.
Clearly, there are many ethical issues involved in this kind of curricular activity.

School communities respond to “risk”: “risk” as a positive

concept in education
In the Introduction to this study, we referred to Aspinall’s proposed five cat-
egories of risk:

1 Risk as a positive concept in education;

2 Risk as a negative concept in education;
3 Risk, individualization and education;
4 Risk, globalization and education; and
5 Risk, neoliberalism and education.
[Aspinall: 2014, 1]

As a part of a general pedagogy, risk has been adopted as a positive concept in

education, indeed becoming imbedded in early childhood national standards.
Touhill and Radich [n.d., 5] showed how: “A well-organised environment is”:

• Welcoming;
• Vibrant and flexible;
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 191
• Responsive to children and their changing needs, interests and abilities;
• One that invites experiences, interactions, risk-taking, discovery, connec-
tions to nature, conversations, play and collaboration; and
• Encouraging young students to be active and purposeful risk-takers, is
indeed, a highly desirable teaching/learning strategy in school education.

This is a view held by most educators. For example, Grotzer [n.d., n.p.] from
the Harvard Graduate School of Education maintained: “Asking questions
involves taking risks. How can you communicate this big message to your
students and help them take risks in their learning? What does this mean in
a concrete sense?” She reckoned there were “at least three areas where teach-
ers can help students learn to feel comfortable taking risks in their thinking”.
These were:

• The environment must support risk-taking in learning;

• The curriculum needs to allow for some uncertainty and ambiguity about
exactly what children will learn; and
• Students need opportunities to learn forms of thinking that embody risk-
taking and openness.
[Grotzer: n.d., n.p.]

A concrete example might include a teacher of a class of Year 1s making avail-

able to the class a collection of batteries, bulbs and wires. Their task is some-
time during their day to use these three items of equipment to make the bulb
light up. The students are not instructed how to do so, but need to discover,
either individually or in groups how to make an electrical circuit, and in doing
so they are encouraged to “take risks” in their learning situation.

Risk as a negative concept in education

Risk as a negative concept in school education can be illustrated in recent leg-
islation in some countries in respect to unattended children moving between
home and school.
“Kids once took special pride in ‘knowing how to get places’ alone, and in
finding shortcuts adults normally wouldn’t use”, wrote Rosin [2014] in The
Atlantic. Hers was an article dealing with children’s adventure playgrounds in
North Wales, and the masses of children constructing their own games in the
open space. There was, however, some minimal adult supervision, but the phi-
losophy of these adventure playgrounds was children “discovering” and using
the facilities to construct their own games, without any adult supervision. This
brought Rosin [2014] to compare her own childhood in the 1970s with that
of her own children in 2014.
“It’s hard to absorb how much childhood norms have shifted in just one
generation”, Rosin [2014, n.p.] claimed. Indeed, parenting “actions that would
have been considered paranoid in the ’70s – walking third-graders to school,
192 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
forbidding your kid to play ball in the street, going down the slide with your
child in your lap – are now routine”. In fact, in 2014 these are “the markers
of good, responsible parenting”. To substantiate her argument, Rosin [2014]
then cited some research of “‘children’s independent mobility’, conducted in
urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods in the U.K., shows that in 1971, 80
per cent of third-graders walked to school alone. By 1990, that measure had
dropped to 9 per cent, and now it’s even lower”.
“‘There’s a fear’ among parents, Roger Hart, an academic geographer told
Rosin [2014], of ‘an exaggeration of the dangers, a loss of trust that isn’t clearly
explainable’”. This almost chronic fear has resulted in a “‘continuous and ulti-
mately dramatic decline in children’s opportunities to play and explore in their
own chosen ways’” wrote Peter Gray, a psychologist at Boston College and the
author of Free to learn, and cited by Rosin [2014, n.p.]. In fact, now “no more
pickup games, idle walks home from school, or cops and robbers in the garage
all afternoon”. “The child culture from . . . [the 1970s], with its own traditions
and codas, its particular pleasures and distresses, is virtually extinct”. That is,
except in one New Zealand school.
Beginning in 2011, Swanson Primary School in New Zealand “submit-
ted itself to a university experiment and agreed to suspend all playground
rules, allowing the kids to run, climb trees, slide down a muddy hill, jump
off swings, and play in a ‘loose-parts pit’ that was like a mini-adventure
playground” [Rosin: 2014, n.p.]. While teachers feared chaos, they were
utterly surprised: “In fact what they got was less naughtiness and bullying –
because the kids were too busy and engaged to want to cause trouble, “the
principal said”.
This is a view reflected at Tasmania’s Mount Nelson Primary School, nes-
tled in bushland above Hobart, where the school principal explained: “We
don’t talk about rules, because there’s no thought or logic behind rules; values
are the only things that are important” [Denholm: 2014, n.p]. Indeed, here,
“Respect, care, achievement and team-playing are all you need to live by. Rules
are something irrational” [Denholm: 2014, n.p]. Denholm [2014, n.p.] further
elucidated: “Risk, indeed, is an adult-only social construct, not yet developed
in childhood”.
Contrast this with the situation elsewhere where the anxieties of risk society
in relation to school children have been institutionalised in New South Wales.
Here, police have “lectured” parents “for letting their children walk to the
shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying incidents will be
reported to the Department of Community Services if a child is considered at
risk” [Arlington & Stevenson: 2012, n.p.]. In the north-west Sydney suburb of
Hornsby, police officers told a mother “it was ‘inappropriate’ for her 10-year-
old daughter to catch a bus unaccompanied, and warned a Manly father whose
seven-year-old son walked alone to a local shop that while they would not
alert DOCS [Department of Community Services], they would file a report”.
A similar incident occurred in the Queensland police jurisdiction. Here, the
police charged a parent “for breaching the criminal code in relation to child
supervision. . . . Other parents have reacted strongly after a police notice about
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 193
the crime, and the charge, was included in a newsletter at a rural Queensland
school” [Do your kids walk: 2016, n.p.].
With the law in most Australian states and territories, indeed, in the UK,
and most US states, requiring an adult accompany children to and from school,
there has been a massive increase in vehicular traffic on roads feeding into
schools, and subsequent road accidents. In the UK and the US, local educa-
tional authorities determine the detail of the rules. But in Australian states and
territories, it is system-wide. In Queensland “only one in seven . . . children
walk or cycle to school, and those who don’t are missing out on potential
health benefits, including a significant boost to mental health”. Consequently,
a 2016 Griffith University initiative sought to “overcome barriers to walk-
ing and cycling to school for parents and their school-going children”. Obvi-
ously, one product of social risk mentality, in the form of legislation prohibiting
unaccompanied children walking or cycling to school, has produced another
product of risk society in the form of challenges to physical fitness, often in the
form of eating disorders and obesity [Furlong & Cartmel: 1997, 94–95].
Professional middle class parents have been shown to be particularly anxious
about risk. The purchase of cell (mobile) phones by parents from this particu-
lar socio-economic group for their children provides an informative example:
“Almost all the children of respondents in this study had access to a cell phone
by the age of thirteen; some parents bought it earlier, and most parents with
younger children said that they would buy a phone when their child hit middle
school” [Nelson: 2010, 115]. For these parents, their child[ren] possessing a cell
phone was an important step in risk management, but of course, multiple stud-
ies have shown how young people’s use of these devices also are accompanied
with many and varied risks, along with anxious parents and carers, and school
communities [Rodwell: 2017, 26–31].

Analysis and conclusions

For teachers, students and wider school communities, schools were vastly dif-
ferent places in the 21st century than they had been 30 or so years before. Now,
they reflect all the anxieties of the local communities, their nation and their
governments. These manifold anxieties have meant a changing role for teach-
ers and school administrators – from educational administrators to managers.
With the dual impact of globalism and neoliberalism other changes have
impacted teachers and teacher preparation. With an eye on such global organ-
isations such as the OECD, national governments have strengthened their con-
trol over teaching standards and teacher preparation. Risk society imperatives
have come to dominate teacher education in universities, and teachers’ profes-
sional development in schools and colleges.
Risk society thinking has also meant national governments providing ever-
increasing controls over teacher preparation courses in universities and in
teacher development. Consequently, risk management in schools and colleges
has become a major facet of teacher educational policy: keeping students safe
has become the product of anxious societies and governments.
194 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
References
3E Conference: ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference in Leeds, UK (2016).
(11–13 May). University of Leeds. Retrieved 8 October from [Link]/.
AHISA (2015). Media release (13 February). Retrieved 22 February 2017 from [Link].
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AHISA-MR-13-Feb-2015-TEMAG-report-
[Link].
AITSL (2013). A profile of AITSL: “‘What is AITSL and its mission?’” [Link]/
docs/default-source/national-policies-resources/[Link] . (retrieved
24 November 2014).
Arlington, K. & Stevenson, A. (2012). Police threat to parents on children walking alone.
Sydney Morning Herald (2 February). Retrieved 4 October 2016 from [Link]/
nsw/[Link].
Asia Society (2013). Teacher quality: the 2013 summit on the teaching profession. Retrieved
2 August 2016 from [Link] .
Aspinall, R.W. (2014). Education and risk: the application of risk society theory to the study
of education systems in Europe, America and Asia. Discussion Paper No. A-11. (July).
Center for Risk Research, Faculty of Economics, Shiga University.
Australian eChallenge in Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 October 2016 from [Link].
[Link]/echallenge/schools/.
Australian Teacher Regulation Authorities (n.d.). [Link]/. (retrieved 12 May
2015).
Bassey, M. (2005). Teachers and government: a history of intervention in education. London. Lon-
don: The Association of Teachers and Lecturers. Retrieved 15 September 2017 from
[Link]/Images/Teachers%20and%[Link].
Bates, R. (2010). Teacher education in a global context: towards a defensible theory of teacher educa-
tion, in Asian perspectives on teacher education. Abingdon, Eng: Routledge.
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society: A Hobhouse Memorial Public Lecture
given on Wednesday 15 February 2006 at the London School of Economics. Economy &
Society. 35(3). pp. 329–345.
Bialostock, S. & Kamberelis, G. (2014). The play of risk, affect, and the enterprising self in
a fourth-grade classroom. In D. Blum & C. Ullman (Eds.) The globalization and corporatiza-
tion of education: Limits and liminality of the market mantra, New York/London: Routledge,
pp. 51–68.
Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration.
38(2). pp. 129–141.
Blömeke, S., Houang, R., Hsieh, F. J., Wang, T.Y.(2018). Effects of job motives, teacher
knowledge and school context on beginning teachers’ commitment to stay in the
profession: A longitudinal study in Germany, Taiwan and the United States. In M. Akiba &
G. LeTendre (Eds.) International handbook of teacher quality and policy. New York/London:
Routledge, pp. 102–156.
Burnard, P., Craft, A., Cremin, T, Duffy, B., Hanson, R. & Keene, J. (2014). Documenting
“possibility thinking”: A journey of collaborative enquiry. International Journal of Early
Years Education. 14(3). pp. 243–262.
Cervantes, I.M. (2013). The role of risk-taking behavior in the development of speaking
skills in ESL classrooms. Revista de Lenguas ModeRnas. 19, pp. 421–435.
Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington: Brook-
ings Institution Press.
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 195
D’Mello, C. (2016). The high school students taking fundamental steps to succeed as entre-
preneurs. Sydney Morning Herald (29 August). Retrieved 8 October from [Link].
au/small-business/entrepreneur/high-school-students-are-learning-the-skills-to-suc
[Link].
Darder, A. (2015). Forward. In K.M. Sturges (Ed.). Neoliberalizing educational reform: Amer-
ica’s quest for profitable market-colonies and the undoing of public good. Rotterdam/Boston/
Taipei. Sense, pp. 7–21.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation
and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan. (1 November). 87(3), pp. 237–240.
Retrieved 15 September 2017 from [Link]
003172170508700318
Denholm (2014). Mount Nelson Primary is in the running, without rules, The Australian
(21 June). Retrieved 14 March 2018 from [Link]/national-affairs/
in-depth/schools/mount-nelson-primary-is-in-the-running-without-rules/news-story/
eb5cbb940d03a10042b86ca1a654d6b7.
Do your kids walk or ride to school by themselves? You could be breaking the law. (2016).
Courier Mail (5 August). Retrieved 4 September from [Link]/news/
queensland/do-your-kids-walk-or-ride-to-school-by-themselves-you-could-be-break
ing-the-law/news-story/d45f1daefac034cb0a7aef961285c88b.
Eisner, E.W. (1997). Who decides what schools teach? In D.J. Flinders & S.J. Thornton
(Eds.) The curriculum studies reader, New York: Routledge.
Exley, S. & Ball, S.J. (2014). Neoliberalism and English education. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds.)
Neoliberal educational reforms: a critical analysis, New York/London: Routledge, pp. 211–242.
Fien, J. (n.d.). Indigenous knowledge and sustainability. Teaching and learning for a sus-
tainable future. A multimedia teacher education programme. UNESCO. Retrieved 13
September 2017 from [Link]/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/[Link].
Fuchs, K., Werner, A. & Wallau, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Germany and
Sweden: what role do different school systems play? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development. 15(2). pp. 365–381.
Furedi, F. (1997/2006). Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation (2nd Edn.).
London: Cassell.
Furlong, A. & Cartmel, F. (1997). Young people and social change: individualization and risk in
late modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Grotzer, T. (n.d.). The keys to inquiry. Big messages to communicate around learning
from experience. Retrieved 7 October 2016 from [Link]
Inquiry/[Link].
Gunter, H.M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D. & Serpier, R. (2016). NPM and the dynamics of
education policy and practice in Europe. In H.M. Gunter, E. Grimaldi, D. Hall, & R.
Serpier (Eds.) New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy
and practice. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 171–185.
Hulme, M. (2016). Analysing teacher education policy: comparative and historical
approaches. In G. Beauchamp, L. Clarke, M. Hulme, & A. Kennedy (Eds.) Teacher educa-
tion in times of change, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 211–243.
Jansen, J. (2007). Learning and leading in a globalized world. In T. Townsend and R. Bates
(Eds.) Handbook of teacher education: globalization, standards and professionalism in times of
change. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 254–291.
Klein, J. (2011). The failure of American schools. The Atlantic (June). Retrieved 20 February
2017 from [Link]/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-failure-of-american-
schools/308497/.
196 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation
Knott, M. (2015). So you think you can be an Australian teacher? Take the new test for
education students. Sydney Morning Herald (1 December). Retrieved 20 March 2017 from
[Link]/federal-politics/political-news/so-you-think-you-can-be-an-austra
[Link].
Lee, B. (2012). New Public Management, Accounting, Regulators and Moral Panics. Inter-
national Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(3), pp. 192–202.
Meyer, H.D. & Benavot, A. (Eds) (2013). PISA, power, and policy: the emergence of global edu-
cational governance. Boston: Symposium Books.
Moore, A. (2012). Theories of Teaching and Learning. In A. Moore (ed.) Teaching and learn-
ing: pedagogy, curriculum and culture. London: Routledge, pp. 221–249.
Moran, P.W. (2015). Efficiency, standardization and mitigating risk: the strange career of sci-
entific management in American education, 1890–2010. In S. Bialostok, R.L. Whitman &
W.S. Bradley (Eds.) Education and the risk society: theories, discourse and risk identities in educa-
tion contexts. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 55–74.
Nelson, M.K. (2010). Parenting out of control: anxious parents in uncertain times, New York/
London: New York University Press.
OECD (2011a). Building a high quality teaching profession: lessons from around the world. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
OECD (2011b). Lessons from PISA for the United States: strong performers and successful reformers
in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
O’Malley, P. (1992). “Risk, power and crime prevention”. Economy and Society, 21, 252–275.
’Peters, M., Marshall, J. & Fitzsimons, P. (2000). Managerialism and educational policy in
a global context: Foucault, neoliberalism and the doctrine of self-management. In N.C.
Burbule & C.A. Torres (Eds.) Globalization and education: critical perspectives. New York/
London: Routledge, pp. 107–132.
Rodwell, G. (2003). “Shoes well cleaned and heels repaired”: scientific management,
eugenics and teacher selection and preparation in Australia, 1910–70. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education. 24(1) pp. 67–86.
Rodwell, G. (2017). Commonwealth engagement with school education. PhD. University
of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.
Rosin, H. (2014). The overprotected kid. The Atlantic (April). Retrieved 4 October 2016
from [Link]/magazine/archive/2014/04/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-
alone/358631/.
Sinquefield, R. (2013). Public schools are failing, and that’s a healthy sign for good teach-
ers. Forbes (20 September). Retrieved 20 February 2017 from [Link]/sites/
rexsinquefield/2013/09/20/public-schools-are-failing-and-thats-a-healthy-sign-for-
good-teachers/#322b9985b484.
Slater, J. (2003). Central control damages teaching, archived from Times Educational Sup-
plement. [Link]. Retrieved 27 June 2018 from
[Link]
Strauss, V. (2010). What “Superman” got wrong, point by point. The Washington Post
(27 September 2010). Retrieved 15 September 2017 from [Link]
com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/[Link].
Tatto, M.T. (Ed.) (2007a). Special edition on educational reform and teacher education.
International Journal of Educational Research. 45(4–5).
Tatto, M.T. (2007b). Education reform and the global regulation of teachers’ educa-
tion, development and work: a cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Educational
Research. 45. pp. 231–241.
Tatto, M.T. (2007c). Reforming teaching globally. Didcot: Symposium Books.
 Teachers, universities and teacher preparation 197
Teacher Education Advisory Group (2014). Action now: classroom ready teachers report. Retrieved
27 June 2018 from [Link]
ready-teachers-report
Teacher Quality: Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students (n.d.).
Students First: Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Retrieved
20 March 2017 from [Link]/teacher-quality.
Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1),
pp. 75–89.
Touhill, L. & Radich, J. (n.d.). Talking about practice: environment makeover. Learning envi-
ronments. Canberra: National quality standards professional learning program, Australian
Government.
Touraine, A. (2000). Can we live together?: equality and difference. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Trembath, B. (2011). NY schools chief talks to Brendan Trembath. ABC News (25 May).
Retrieved 20 February 2017 from [Link]/news/2008-11-25/ny-schools-
chief-talks-to-brendan-trembath/219310.
Turner, D. & Yolcu, H. (2014). Preface. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds) Neoliberal educational
reforms: critical analysis. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 3–12.
UNESCO (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing. Retrieved 14 September 2017 from [Link]
0014/001418/[Link] .
Wagg, St. (1996). “Don’t try to understand them”: politics, childhood and the new educa-
tion market. In J. Pilcher, J. Pilcher & S. Wagg (Eds.) Thatcher’s children?: politics, childhood
and society in the 1980s and 1990s. London/Washington: Falmer Press, pp. 123–156.
Ward, S.C. (2012). Neoliberalism and the global restructuring of knowledge and education. New
York/London: Routledge.
Why schools should teach entrepreneurship (2015). [Link] (14 April). Retrieved
8 October 2016 from [Link]/article/245038.
World Bank (2013). What matters most for teacher policies: a framework paper. SABER Work-
ing Paper Series, No. 4 (April). Retrieved 2 August 2016 from [Link]
[Link]/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1290520949227/SABER-Teachers-
Framework-Updated_June14.[Link] .
9 Contexts
Bringing it together

Introduction
In examining the impact of risk society on school education in the US, the
UK and Australia, these chapters have shown a remarkable similarity in these
three countries. The extent of the effect over the last three or four decades has
been startling, and at times overwhelming as schools and colleges have changed
to meet new imperatives, often imposed by educational authorities and gov-
ernments as nations come under risk society pressures. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in the ideas represented in the graphic from Ward’s 1952 depic-
tion of the perceived comparison of Western “progress” and Indigenous culture
depicted at the beginning of our Introduction. Within a few short decades the
notions and values expressed in the Ward [1952] school education textbook
were being found to be inadequate, quickly vanishing as thinkers generally
and governments severely questioned the values underpinning Western “prog-
ress”. Henceforth, school education would respond in manifold ways to the
imperatives of risk society thinking, sometimes initiated by governments, other
times by professionals and school communities. Terms such as “progress” and
“reform”, indeed have proven to be a very slippery, and any unquestioning use
of these often have proven to render a nation untold difficulties. “Risk society”
became the term covering these general issues.
By the 1970s, the idea of social progress being founded on non-reflective
science and technology, and supported by school education systems, male-
dominated and blind to the inherent environmental concerns, was being
strongly questioned across Western “developed” countries. An unquestioning
belief in the “progress of modernization” can lead to disaster. We have seen
how Beck, Bonss and Lau [2003, 1] have argued modernisation was within it
its own fault-lines of its own potential “use-by-date”, consequently when it
“reaches a certain stage, it radicalizes itself. It begins to transform, for a sec-
ond time, not only the key institutions, but also the very principles of society.
But this time the principles and institutions being transformed are those of
modern society” [Beck, Bonss & Lau: 2003, 1]. Of course, these institutions
undergoing necessary change include those of school education. Where the
Ward [1952] graphic disparagingly dismissed Indigenous culture in comparison
 Contexts 199
to that of Western modernisation, the pages of this book have shown how
within a few short decades in the face of mounting demonstrable difficulties
in modernisation and its science and technologies, scientists would be look-
ing to ancient Indigenous methods (First Nations Australians) of, for example,
wild fire control. School education responded accordingly as governments and
school authorities sought to address risk society issues. Environmental concerns
first signalled the onset of risk society, quickly translated into political dimen-
sions, and into school education.

The looming presence of risk society

Beck and his followers had noted how modern society organised itself in
response to risk, and labelled this risk society. The term gained popularity dur-
ing the 1990s, and was both a consequence of links to trends in thinking about
wider modernity, and also to its links to popular discourse, in particular the
growing environmental concerns during the period.
A central feature of risk society is a preoccupation with real or perceived
future risks. Possibly, there is no more convincing evidence of the preoccupa-
tion of risk society than with the formation of organisations as the Eurasia
Group, referred to in Chapter 2. With its annual global forecasts of possible risks
it captures international global media attention on possible global risk forecasts
(e.g., Curran: 2018).
Globalisation is another central feature of risk society. As the pace of globali-
sation quickened during the 1980s, so did risk society. As industries readjust,
new international trading arrangements are established, and so on, globalisa-
tion is a phenomenon that affects all areas of our lives, not least the face of
school education. But globalisation also walks hand-in-glove with neoliber-
alism, sometimes referred to as economic rationalism. Founded on neolib-
eral economic doctrine and practice, continually under the gaze of a host of
researchers, the pages of this book have shown how it brings a whole range of
problems, risks and dangers to society, states and peoples, as well as the natural
environment.
Becoming apparent sometime in the 1980s, neoliberalism disintegrated the
policy of the welfare state, and countries and their economies pushed to the
market, bringing the profit and greater wealth to the rich, while at the same
time in a global way bringing increased risks to poorer nations. The effect on
school education was soon apparent, as the pages of this book have shown.
School education became a vital component of a nation’s international trading
network.

Risk society arrives

Beck and his rapidly expanding band of followers did not need to look far for
evidence to support their theory of reflexive modernisation, and the associated
200 Contexts
complex ideas of society being on the edge – catastrophes at every turn, and
seemingly new ones every year or so to challenge governments and policy
bureaucrats, indeed sufficient to warrant the establishment and growth of
global organisations such as the Eurasia Group.
Another such perceived risk facing nations, with massive impact on school
education was vast Islamic migration caused in part by catastrophic waves of
terrorism and anti-terrorist campaigns. School education in the US, the UK
and Australia faced new challenges as fresh surges of various forms of racism,
xenophobia and Islamophobia swept across these nations. Now, increasingly
moral panics became risk society’s fellow traveller, fed by a ravenous media
in partnership with a host of politicians of various persuasions, continually
employing new techniques such as dog-whistle politics and journalism. It was
as Beck had described: the media in its expanding forms, now including social
media became an essential and integral component of risk society.

Young people and families living in risk society

As Beck had shown, by definition risk society nations are anxious nations, and
this was evident very early in the rise of risk society: witness, for example, the
enormous social upheavals accompanying the sexuality education imbroglios of
recent years. Indeed, and on reflection, one would have expected so: when we
consider the restructuring of youth identities and transitions in late modernity
we come to comprehend how the young people of today are vastly different
from preceding generations.
While the early 20th century eugenic campaigns affirmed marginalised chil-
dren and their families have long suffered at the hands of the social policy, with
the onset of risk society their lot did not improve:

They are there with the 26-week-old Inuit baby on high-frequency oscilla-
tory ventilation, whose mother is 16 years of age (prematurity has a significant
social determination); they are there with the six-year-old child of Rwandan
refugee parents, with limited access to quality primary care and frequent
visits to the emergency room with asthma exacerbations (marginalization
through the peculiarities of the health care insurance system for refugees);
and they are there with the 15-year-old adolescent who attempted suicide
after being “taxed” (extorted for money) and bullied at school because he
happens to behave effeminately (social discrimination and health).
[Razack: 2009, 287]

Perhaps not surprisingly, risk society thinking, education and socio-economical

disadvantaged families are constant themes throughout this book.
Under the onslaught of risk society, a lot of young people and their families
were challenged further by the rapidly developing social media and its impact
on the restructuring of youth identities. Now, there was a vast new ocean of
relationships, knowledge and attitudes which need to be negotiated, not least
 Contexts 201
are those associated with xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia. Here, victims
and perpetuators alike have needed to negotiate a vast spider web of new anxi-
eties, all the product of risk society. Throw in issues associated with mental
health, paedophilia, gender equity, bullying and sexuality, family violence and
obesity, and the pages of this book have demonstrated the new challenges faced
by young people and the risk society in the 21st century.

Risk society theory, neoliberalism, school education,

mainstream media and social media
Of course with the rapid onset of a risk society during the 1980s beginning
to be manifest in almost every cranny of society and economy, and beginning
to touch young people and families, school education also began to feel these
changes. Typical of much of what has occurred with risk society, when school
educational policy began to accommodate neoliberalism it did so as a conse-
quence of pressures from broader neoliberalism, but at the same time these
developments were seen by many in government and school educational policy
community as causing additional risk society concerns.
We have seen in Chapter 4 how Zajda [2015] demonstrated that internation-
ally, in respect to neoliberalism works hand-in-hand with globalisation, and is
designed to achieve competitiveness, quality and diversity. This has impacted
on education reforms in four ways, including finance-driven reforms; now, for
example a nation’s school education, with its quest for enrolment of overseas
students is an important component of its export commodities.
In some countries, the sale of children’s bicycles plummeted in the face of
risk society, an unexpected event, indeed, but simply one glaring example of
risk society changing the face of traditional school education. Chapter 4 dem-
onstrated that because risks are open to social definition and construction, the
mass media play key roles in mediating these risks. Consequently, reflecting as
it does the manifold risk society anxieties – and at the same time feeding into
this maelstrom of apprehension – the language used by the media deserves close
scrutiny. And, of course, researchers with the increasing use by executive gov-
ernments of such devices as “the tweet machine” are only now turning their
attention to the role of social media in risk society: witness the role of social
media in such panic affairs as Islamophobia. Also, we need to remind ourselves
of the increasing role of dog-whistle journalism and politics in school educa-
tional policy. Of course, such an incursion into school education by risk society
is yet another example of the increasingly precarious mix of school education,
globalisation, young people, and the media.
The media, however, and risk society combine in other ways to create anx-
ious school communities: witness the increasing role of risk society and dog-
whistling in school educational policy, or even school community concerns
about young peoples’ use of violent video games.
Finally, researchers are now looking to how school educational pol-
icy is increasingly enhancing reflexive modernity. Governments and school
202 Contexts
communities are looking to the importance of teachers engaging in ongoing
critical processes of reflexivity through questioning the assumptions they bring
to their work, including an interrogation of the deeply seated assumptions
teachers bring to their practice.

National governments respond

By the early 1980s, with the onset of globalism and neoliberalism there was
clear evidence of governments looking to school education in order to offset
perceived challenges by risk society. Consequently, research emerged focus-
sing on risk society (Beck, Giddens), globalisation (Ohmae), and neoliberalism
or economic rationalism (Pusey). Not surprisingly, governments increasingly
looked to school education to advance the political and economic agendas.
School education progressively assumed global dimensions.
Globalising and internationalising school education are well marked by IB,
which increasingly is finding its place in a nation’s offerings of school educa-
tion. But, of course, there is more to this globalising and internationalising of
school education phenomenon than that. Throughout the pages of this book
we have seen how risk society imperatives have encouraged governments to
look to school education as a key marketplace to improve national balance of
payments.
During the 1980s, in the face of emerging risk society and global imperatives
and nations’ workforces were changing often in the face of massive economic
restructuring, and school education displaced traditional economic sectors,
such as manufacturing, as the latter moved to Asia. For governments, more
is needed to be drawn from the school education sector: risk society required
young people to stay at school longer. Consequently, the politics of school edu-
cation retention, or graduation rates intensified in the countries under study in
this book. There even have been questions of mandating an earlier starting age.
In the face of risk society pressures during the 1980s there began an inten-
sification of the nexus of school retention/completion rates, universities,
vocational education and training and immigration policy. This meant an
accompanying changing relationships between school education policies and
immigration in the US, the UK and Australia.
Perhaps the most glaring response by a national government to risk society
came in 2007–2008 in Australia in the face of the threat of the GFC when
the federal government legislated for the BER. Now, the school educational
national building strategy would be used on a national scale to manage an eco-
nomic crisis.

National standardised testing and reporting

Being a part of the national efficiency drive and the associated scientific man-
agement movement during the interwar years, school education students first
experienced national standardised testing. As illustrated by some recent research
 Contexts 203
by Moran [2015], these aspirations lay dormant in government thinking until
the onset of neoliberalism, globalism and responses to risk society during the
1980s. Now, there emerged a growing international drive towards – or even an
infatuation with – national standardised testing and reporting.
With the advent of OECD’s PISA testing, a nation’s performance here soon
attracted national attention. For example, the developing politically vexed
issues of PISA were layed bare in 2014 in the UK. “Are we at a turning point
or a tipping point?” asked Sutcliffe [2014, n.p.]. “With a general election less
than a year away will the reforms that have swept through state schools over the
last four years endure and become embedded? Or is there opportunity to take
a different path and for alternative arguments to prevail?” [Sutcliffe: 2014, n.p.].
Moreover, Sutcliffe [2014, n.p.] asked: “Is our education system effective in the
modern world?” Now, in the lead-up to elections, international comparisons
were vitally important: “The UK has fallen to 26th in the PISA league tables
for maths, a downward trend reflected in sciences and reading. So things bring
us to the question of whether our modern childhood education is effective”
[Sutcliffe: 2014, n.p.].
Often building on organisational frameworks put in place decades earlier with
previous national testing regimes – but now with a distinctive eye on PISA and
the OECD – the US, the UK and Australia now required massive input from
its schools. With clear evidence of the bite of risk society on the lives of young
people, a year’s schooling took on a new face, as governments and educational
authorities demanded more from schools. Now, weeks in a school year could
be given over to preparing pupils for the national standardised testing program.
And not all in the school community agreed with these developments, with at
least on one occasion President Obama using social media with a promise to
lessen the load on the nation’s students and their families.
In responding to anxieties of national standardised testing regimes, parents
and carers seeking to enrol their child[ren] flocked to the Internet to discover
which schools produced the most competitive standardised test results, while
around school neighbourhoods private coaching organisations grew in number
as parents responded to these risk society imperatives. There has even been talk
of running national readiness assessments for Kindergarten and Year 1 students.
No wonder, the media in its various forms feed on this, at once reflecting the
national anxieties as well as adding to them. This has been classical risk society
theory at work

National curricular
Perhaps more extensive research than is permitted in the space of this book may
show all aspects of how the school education curriculum in various ways has
responded to risk society imperatives. Here, however, we are attracted by those
curriculum components which attract the most public and media discourse,
and appear as the most glaring examples of how risk society has impacted the
school curriculum.
204 Contexts
With an eye to risk society political and journalistic discourse, Chapter 7 first
addressed the vexed issue of the illusionary language of curriculum “reform”.
Risk society brings ever-changing pressures on governments to bring on changes
to school curricular, and often they are “sold” to the public as “reforms”. Exam-
ine carefully these changes this chapter encourages readers, because often the
so-called “reforms” are no more than politically prompted changes in the face
of the demands of risk society.
On several occasions throughout this book we have looked to Singaporean
school education system to illustrate by way of contrast developments in school
education resulting from risk society pressures in the US, UK and Australia.
Chapter 7 was one such occasion revealing how effectively the tightly self-
contained South-East Asian city-state has fashioned it school curriculum to the
manifold demands of risk society.
Despite the fact that climate change offers manifold risk society challenges, a
climate change curriculum is highly politicised, becoming a “political football”
as various sides of the debate push their agendas. Sometimes, schools have little
room to move on this issue. In a sense, sexuality education illustrates similar
responses to risk society – highly politicised and divisive.
Principally assisted by globalism, responses in the science and mathematics cur-
ricular to risk society are illustrating classical developments in respect to reflexive
thinking. Here, there has been a deliberate attempt to incorporate indigenous
knowledge, underscoring the vivid revelations portrayed in this respect to Ward’s
1952 textbook to which the pages of this present book has so often referred, and
which we first encountered at the beginning of our Introduction.
Imbroglios almost to the extent we have seen existing in climate change and
sexuality education in the curriculum are evident with the history curriculum
as it responds to risk society imperatives. Indeed, often to a surprising extent
the history wars are replicated here, as governments attempt to strengthen their
borders through the History curriculum. Here, in a sense, the History curricu-
lum becomes a part of a nation’s border protection.

Teachers, universities and teacher preparation

While risk society impacted teachers, universities and teacher preparation in
many different ways, Chapter 8 sought to describe how it has brought changes
to teacher preparation. In a broad and general sense as school principals and
teachers responded to risk society, there was a changing emphasis on their role
as educational administrators to that of educational managers, with manageri-
alism becoming a mindset. The many moral panics associated with such hap-
penings as Islamophobia, which accompanied risk society thinking requires
higher-order management skills.
Evidence of the impact of risk society on teacher preparation came through
the way in which through globalism international standards in teacher prepara-
tion have been monitored. This is especially so through such global agencies as
UNESCO and the OECD. Anxieties, indeed, even moral panics concerning
 Contexts 205
the standards of teacher preparation resulted, and this meant, inevitably, national
governments “muscles” in on teacher preparation. While all of this has been
happening, some researchers have noted a definite return to scientific manage-
ment in school educational systems.
Nowhere is the notion of risk, individualisation and school education more
blatantly obvious than observing a knot of young people emerging from school
at the end of the day and proceeding to pour over their cell [mobile] phones.
Risk society has changed society dramatically, as it also has done with its schools.
Now, risks abound in the cultural life of schools. For example, reflect on that
knot of young people in their after-school behaviour with their cell (mobile)
phones. Witness the associated personal risk associated with broader market
forces compelling them to own and subsequently engage in covert cell (mobile)
phone behaviour while attending class. This behaviour is ultra-consumerist,
and at the same time a part of a multitude of moral panic associated behaviours
such as Islamophobia, all aspects of risk society.
Increasingly, a student’s attitude and accomplishments in respect to risk-taking
are now appearing on school reports. This is because risk-taking has become a
pedagogical tool. But, additionally, governments and school authorities encour-
age this school educational activity because students’ risk-taking contributes to
capitalist society and economy, and general attitudes of entrepreneurship.

Analysis and conclusions

As we come to realise the increasing impact of risk society on school educa-
tional policy, we come to understand how any such survey of risk society and
educational policy by necessity is work in progress. But it is a rapidly unfolding
story, fed by increasingly anxious communities and governments. It’s not that it
is happening, but rather, that it might happen is the dynamic mentality.
Risk society impacts school education in multiple and kaleidoscopic ways.
If there is a single, definable common theme, it is anxiety – anxious schools,
anxious communities, anxious nations, anxious governments, blending to a
media-fed maelstrom, all feeding in on each other, pockmarked with a variety
of recurring moral panics.

References
Beck, U., Bonss, W. & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic,
hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society. 20(2). pp. 1–33.
Curran, E. (2018). The world is facing a “big, unexpected crisis” in 2018, says Eurasia
Group. Sydney Morning Herald (3 January). Retrieved 4 January 2018 from [Link].
[Link]/business/markets/the-world-is-facing-a-big-unexpected-crisis-in-2018-says-
[Link].
Moran, P.W. (2015). Efficiency, standardization and mitigating risk: the strange career of
scientific management in American education, 1890–2010. In S. Bialostok, R. Whit-
man & W.S. Bradley (Eds.) Education and the risk society: theories, discourse and risk identities
in education contexts. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense, pp. 55–74.
206 Contexts
Razack, S. (2009). Vulnerable and marginalized children: Who are they and how can we
help? Paediatric Child Health. (May-June) 14(5). pp. 287–289.
Sutcliffe, J. (2014). Improving the leadership of learning, Great Education Debate (18 June).
Retrieved 20 January 2018 from [Link]/[Link]-
[Link].
Ward, R. (1952). Man makes history. Sydney: Shakespeare Head Press.
Zajda, J. (2015). Globalisation and its impact on educational policy. In J. Zajda (Ed.) Second
international handbook on globalisation, education and policy research, Heidelberg: Springer,
pp. 105–126.
Index

Abbott, Tony 119, 132, 159 deregulation 92; Economic rationalism in

abuse: bulllying 73–76; dating 76–77; Canberra (Pusey) 92; Education Services
family violence 76–77 for Overseas Students Bill 119; entrance
ACARA (Australian Curriculum and into national standardised assessment
Reporting Authority) 6; Safe Schools 140–141; entrepreneurship programs
sexuality program 93–94 188–189; eugenic policies 60–61; family
accommodation 188 violence in 76–77; Fraserism 92; and
achievement gap 63; and gender equity 72 gender equity 73; Global Greens 24,
“actants” 109 29, 47–48; globalisation, impact on
adolescents: associated risks of 13–14; and effectiveness of secondary education in
gender equity 71–73 63–64; graduation rates 122–123; Hawke
Agassiz, Louis 27 Labour 91–92; high-stakes testing 147;
agency: and structuration 43 history curriculum, globalism effect on
AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching 172–173; immigration enforcement 120;
and School) 6, 186–187 Indigenous culture 1–4; Islamophobia
anxiety 109; effect on school performance 31, 32; media attitude towards immigrant
99–100; and young people 57 educational issues 125; media reporting
APS (Australian Psychological Society) 106 on national standardised assessment
Ariès, Philippe 59 149–151; moral panics in schools 95–96;
assessment: “audit society” 46; collection NAPLAN 147; national standardised
of PISA data in Australia 142–143; assessment 145–146; obesity in 77–78;
high-stakes testing 142; international One Nation Party 30–31; PISA
infatuation with national standardised data collection 142–143; prevalence
assessement 140–142; low-stakes testing of paedophilia in 70; racism in 67;
142; national standardised assessment refugee policies 124–125; response to
202–203; PISA 11, 66, 180–181; international imperatives in teacher
responding to national standardised preparation 186–187; Safe Schools
testing regimes 146–149; SATs 11; sexuality program 93–94, 168; school
see also high-stakes testing; national bullying 75; services exports to China
standardised assessment 119; sexuality education 168; skill
assimilation 188 formation policies 123; social control
ATRA (Australasian Teacher Regulatory school of educational history 139; teacher
Authorities) 187 education policy 183; video games
“at-risk” youth 57, 65; anxiety 57; see also in school curriculum 105; Whitlam
young people Labour Government 45; Year 1 readiness
“audit society” 46 assessments 151–152; see also Tasmania
Australia: BER 130–132; climate change
as school curriculum 161–164; dog- Bailey, Liberty Hyde 27
whistle politics in 103–104; economic Batty, Rosie 104–105
208 Index
BBVs (blood-borne viruses): alleviating crises: Asian economic crisis of 1997
risks of 62 13; emancipatory catastrophism 25;
Beck, Ulrich 8, 19, 33, 37, 43–44, GFC 39–40; moral panics 14; see also
49–50; on individualisation 56–57; catastrophes
Metamorphosis of the world (2015) 25; Risk cultural capital 63
society: Towards a new modernity (1986) 25; curriculum 157–158; climate change as
on social class 40; on the welfare state 41 part of 161–164; entrepreneurship 12;
BER (Building Education Revolution) government control of 14; mathematics,
130–132 globalism effect on 168–170; national
Bialostok, Steven 4 curricular 203–204; neoliberal reforms
Blair, Tony 91 158
“blame culture” 44, 52
Boudia, S. 2–3 dating abuse 76–77
Bowman, David 4 decline of school libraries 98–99
Brexit 18, 30, 130 defining risk society theory 49–50
Brown, Dr. Bob 23, 27–28, 104 deregulation: of the Australian economy
Bruner, Jerome 188 92; of media 91–92
bullying 73–76 disintegration of the Soviet Union, impact
on globalisation 8–9
Cameron, David 120, 165 distrust of institutions 50–51
Casey review 128 dog-whistle politics 100–104; Trump’s use
catastrophes 200; reducing impact of of 102–103; in the UK 126–130
natural disasters 62 domestic violence 76–77
catastrophic view of risk society 36 Drozdz, Maya 77
CDA (critical discourse analysis) 117–118 dualism 43
Centuries of childhood (Ariès) 59
challenges to risk society theory 42–43 Earth Day 27–28
China, Australia’s services exports to 119 economic globalisation 9
Churchill, Winston 48–49 economic rationalism 4, 199
Clark, Michael 67 Economic rationalism in Canberra (Pusey) 92
class conflicts, and progress 29 education: achievement gap 63;
class inequality 39–40 “audit society” 46; BER 130–132;
Clemes, Stacy 165 compensatory programs 63; completion
climate change 7–8, 19, 24–26; as school rates 202; efficiency as goal 139–140;
curriculum 161–164; teaching programs e-learning 98–99; entrepreneurship in
162; tenets of 25–26 school curriculum 12; entrepreneurship
Clinton, Hillary, use of dog-whistle politics programs 188–190; environmental
103 26–28; gender equity issues 71–73;
Cold War 22; impact on school education globalisation effect on Australian school
4; nuclear proliferation 26 education 89–90; globalisation impact on
Cole, E.W. 69 12–13, 116–117; government control of
community environmental education, 11, 14; graduation rates 202; IB 89; ICT
waste management 28–29 impact on 97–99; international market
compensatory educational programs 63 in 116; internationalising 118–120, 202;
Comstock, Anna Botsford 27 internationalising of 4; Islamophobia in
construction of hydroelectric dams in schools 68–69; moral panics 44; Nation
Tasmania 22–24 at risk, A (1983) 117; national building
construction of personal identity 64 strategy 130–132; national school
constructionism 45–47; view of medical educational initiatives 5–6; NPM 179;
knowledge 79–80 OBE 123; policy management 107–109;
Corbyn, Jeremy 120 policy recommendations 90–91; and
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 129 poverty 63–64; power shifts in 12;
Country Life movement 27 privatisation of 12; racism in schools
 Index 209
65–67; reforms 90, 117–118, 139; risk Fenton, Kevin 165
as negative concept in 191–193; risk as “figleaf ” 100–101
positive concept in 190–191; risk in 44; first-generation immigrants, educational
risk management in universities 45–46; achievement 124–125
risks in 6–7; risk-taking as pedagogical five categories of risk 190
strategy 187–188; role in overcoming forced migration 124–125
risks of globalisation 97; Safe Schools forecasting risk 37, 199
sexuality program 93–94; SATs 11; in Foucault, Michel 44; constructionism
Singapore, risk society impact on 11–13; 45–47; governmentality 45–46; on
social control school of educational knowledge 171
history 139; social media, role in risk Fraser, Malcolm 23, 92
society theory 94–95; and socio- Fraserism 92
economical disadvantaged families 61–64; Future of Sex Education project 167
starting age of compulsory education future risks 199
125–126; video games in school
curriculum 105; see also graduation rates; gap between rich and poor 61–62
international school education Gates, Bill 39
Education and the risk society: Theories, gender equity 71–73, 80–81; in Australia
discourse and risk identities in education 73; in the UK 72
contexts 7 GFC (Global Financial Crisis) 39–40
Education Services for Overseas Students Giddens, Anthony 8, 31, 33, 37, 49–50
Bill 119 Gill, Tim 78
effects of racism 65–66 Gillard, Julia 131–132, 184
efficiency 12, 139–140 global cities 11–12
e-learning 98–99 global governance 18–19
election of Donald Trump 18 Global Greens 24, 29, 47–48
Ellis, Luci 39 Global Risks Report 46
emancipatory catastrophism 25 global warming 25, 26
entrepreneurship: promoting through risk- globalisation 5, 8–9, 36, 115–116, 133;
taking 188–190; in school curriculum 12 economic 9; of education 118–120;
environmental education 26–28; drivers of effect of on Australian school
27; Earth Day 27–28 education 89–90; effect on young
environmentalism 7–8, 24; Global Greens people 58–60; of green politics 24;
24; green movement 31–32; New Right ICT impact on education 97–99;
response to 20; politics of 20; pollution immigration enforcement 120; impact
18–19; waste management 28–29; see also on effectiveness of secondary education
climate change 63–64; impact on school education
equality 63; gender 71–73 12–13; multidimensional nature of 6;
equality, measuring 61–62 national politics of 2016 30–31; school
ESL (English as a Second Language), risk- education, role in overcoming risks of
taking in 188 97; Singapore’s response to 159–161;
essential components of risk society theory Zajda on 120; see also globalism
40–42 globalism 4, 8, 10, 11–12; definition 5;
eugenic policies 200–201 effect on history curriculum 172–173;
eugenics 60–61 effect on national mathematics
Eurocentrism 9 curricular 168–170; effect on science
“extreme vetting” policies 68–69 curricular 170–172; impact on school
education 116–117; influence on teacher
failed government policy 41–42 preparation programs 181–183
“fake news” 50–51 Goddard, Henry H. 60
families: domestic violence 76–77; and Goodes, Adam 67
Islamophobia 67–69; racism effect on governance, global 18–19
65–67 government control of education 11, 14
210 Index
governmentality 45–46 inequality, measuring 61–62
graduation rates 121–123, 202; in Australia information technology 64–65
122–123; and race 121–122; in the UK institutionalised thinking on risk 44
122; in the US 122 institutions, national distrust of 50–51
Grant, Julie 161 international school education 116, 117–118,
Grattan, Michelle 172 133, 202; Singapore’s influence on 172
Gray, Peter 192 international standards in teacher
green movement 31–32 preparation 180–181
Green parties 18, 29; rise of 22–24 internationalising of education 4
green politics 4, 7–8; globalisation of 24 internationalization of education 116–117;
Education Services for Overseas Students
Haberle, Simon 4 Bill 119
Handbook for nature study (Comstock) 27 “Islam in the media: a pathway to
Hanson, Pauline 18, 30–31, 161, 162 Islamophobia” 68
Harman, Harriet 120 Islamophobia 14, 67–69, 80, 201; in
Hart, Roger 192 Australia 31, 32; Casey review 128;
Hawke, Bob 24 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 129;
Heartland Institute 164 and dog-whistle journalism 102–103;
Heath, Phillip 187 Operation Trojan horse 127–128; in
HEC (Hydroelectric Commission) 22–24 schools 68–69; in the UK 69, 126–130;
Heller, Brittan 75–76 in the United States 67–68
Heywood, Colin 59
high-stakes testing 142; in Australia 147; in Jas, N. 2–3
the US 148–149 Jones, Peter 61
historical analysis of risk society theory journalism: dog-whistle 100–104
20–21
history curriculum, globalism effect on Kallikak family 60
172–173 KEAs (Kindergarten Entrance Assessments)
History of childhood (Heywood) 59 151
Holding, A.C. 123 Kelly, Zahira 76
Holmgren, D. 24 Kennedy, John 38
Howard, John 185 Kincheloe, Joe Lyons 21
human-caused climate change 25 kindergarten, readiness assessments 151–152
hydroelectric dams, protests over Klein, Joel 170, 184
construction of in Tasmania 22–24 knowledge: Foucault on 171; indigenous
169, 180, 204; and progress 22
IB (International Baccalaureate) 89, 118; as knowledge economy 9
export commodity 119
ICT 109; impact on school education 97–99 Lake Peddler 23–24, 26, 27–28
ideal types 37–38 language of reform 157–158
illusionary language of reform 157–158 learning, risk-taking in 187–188
immigration: enforcement of 120; forced Levitt, Theodore 5
migration 124–125; impact on school liberal-conservative view of risk 43
populations in the UK 121; media Lopez, Ian Haney 103
attitude towards immigrant educational LOVE BiTES 76–77
issues 125; refugee policies 124–125 low-stakes testing 142
In command of history: Churchill fighting and
writing the Second World War (Reynolds) 49 Major, John 185
India in modernity 48–49 managerialism, NPM 179
indigenous knowledge 169, 204; managing risk 37
UNESCO courses 180 manufactured risk 20; and climate change 41
Indigenous populations: Australian 1–4; marginalisation of children 60–61
eugenic policies 60–62 marine plastic pollution 18–19, 40–41;
individualisation 187; Beck on 56 managing 47
 Index 211
mass media: deregulation of 91–92; “fake national school educational initiatives 5–6
news” 50–51; informing government national standardised assessment 139–140,
policy 31; involvement in social risk 202–203; advantages of 140–141; in
construction 38; and moral panic Australia 145–146; Australia’s entry into
theory 95–96; and risk society language 140–141; collection of PISA data in
92–94; and risk society theory 10; Australia 142–143; disadvantages of 141;
see also media as example of reflexive democracy 152;
mathematics curricular, globalism effect on international infatuation with 140–142;
168–170 media reporting on 149–151; responding
May, Theresa 165 to 146–149; in the UK 145; in the US
McGill, Michael V. 146 143–144, 148–149
measuring inequality 61–62 national wellbeing 70, 80
media: attitude towards immigrant natural disasters: emancipatory
educational issues 125; dog-whistle catastrophism 25; reducing impact of 62
journalism 100–104, 126–130; language Nature Study movement 27
used by 201; and reflexive modernity neoliberalism 4, 5, 36, 91, 109, 160, 185,
107–109; reporting on national 201; curriculum reforms 158; effect
standardised testing 149–151 on public sphere 108–109; Fraserism
media discourse 38; “fake news” 50–51 92; governmentality 45–46; media
medical knowledge, constructionist view deregulation 91–92; “reform” 117–118,
of 79–80 157, 185; and risk society theory 44
mental health: anxiety effect on school New Right, response to environmental
performance 99–100; and obesity 77–80; risk 20
paedophilia 70, 80–81; and video games news media: dog-whistle journalism
105–106; young people and anxiety 57 100–104; media discourse 38
Mermin, Dr Jonathan 76 NGSS (Next Generation Science
Metamorphosis of the world (Beck) 25 Standards) 163–164
Mitchell, Megan 67 North American Association for
modernity 8, 9, 36; historical analysis of Environmental Education 28
risk society theory 20–21; India’s place NPM (New Public Management) 179
in 48–49; and the notion of progress nuclear proliferation 26
21–22; progress 47–48; role of science in
19; Western idea of progress 22 OBE (outcome based education) 123
Mollison, B. 24 obesity 56, 77–80, 164–165
monitoring international standards in OECD (Organisation for Economic
teacher preparation 180–181 Co-operation and Development) 6;
moral climate of politics 31–32 teacher preparation programs 180–181
moral panics 14, 44, 97; decline of school Ohmae, Kenichi 5
libraries 98–99; discipline in Australian Ólafsdóttir, Margrét Pála 72
schools 143; and the media 95–96; Oliver, James 165
plastics in seafood 40–41; Safe Schools On education (Agassiz) 27
93–94, 168; video games 105 One Nation Party 18, 29, 30–31, 162;
movements: Country Life 27; green reflexive democracy 32
movement 4, 7–8, 31–32; Nature Study 27 Operation Trojan horse 127–128
Muslim accounts of Operation Trojan Orgill, Brad 131
horse 127–128
paedophilia 70, 80–81
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Permaculture One (Mollison, B. &
Progress) 11 Holmgren, D.) 24
NAPLAN (National Assessment Plan: personal identity, constructing 64
Literacy and Numeracy) 6, 11, 147 Pfaff, William 47
Nation at risk, A (1983) 117, 178, 183–184 Piaget, Jean 188
national cost of gender issues 71 PISA (Program for International Student
National Environmental Education Act 28 Assessment) 11, 66, 180–181; data
212 Index
collection in Australia 142–143; gender realist perspective on risk 43–44
equity issues 71–72 reducing impact of natural disasters 62
Pitcavage, Mark 5 Reece, Eric 23
plastics, marine plastic pollution 18–19 reflexive democracy 32; national
policies: “actants” 109; Counter-Terrorism standardised assessment as example of
and Security Act 129; education policy 152
recommendation 90–91; eugenic reflexive modernisation 3–4, 9–10, 50,
60–61, 200–201; “extreme vetting” 107–109, 158, 199–200
68–69; failed government policy 41–42; reflexivity 4, 42–43, 50; in school
“figleaf ” 100–101; governmentality communities 108
45–46; “identikit” 29; language of school reform 92–93, 117–118, 160; language of
educational policy 117–118; mass media 157–158; Nation at risk, A (1983) 183–184;
impact on 31; refugee 124–125; risk NPM 179; in US education 90, 185;
society impact on 36; school education see also Nation at risk, A (1983)
107–109; skill formation 123; starting refugee policies 124–125
age of compulsory education 125–126; research: CDA 117–118; on the effect
transnational influences on education of globalisation on Australian school
policy 118–119 education 89–90; historical analysis of
political parties: ascendancy of 29 risk society theory 20–21; on risk society
politics: dog-whistle 100–104; of education theory 7
retention 121–123; moral climate of responding to national standardised testing
31–32; of risk society theory 20, 28–33 regimes 146–149
Politics, markets and America’s schools (Chubb restructuring of youth identities 57–60;
and Moe) 118 through social media 64–65
pollution 18; marine plastic pollution revisionist accounts of educational history
40–41 139
poverty, risks associated with 62 revolutions: and progress 29
power shifts in education 12 rise of Green political parties 22–24
“precautionary principle” 166 risk 7, 18; and climate change 19;
perceived risks 200 defining 94; in education 44; and
Prevent program 129–130 failed government policy 41–42; five
prevention 57; Counter-Terrorism and categories of 190; forecasting 199;
Security Act 129; and sterilisation 61 global 19; institutionalised thinking on
principals, managerialism 178–179 44; manufactured 20; national 18; as
privatisation of education 12 negative concept in education 191–193;
Privot, Michael 68 perceived 200; as positive concept in
progress 47–48; and historiography 48–49; education 190–191; realist perspective on
and modernity 21–22; technological 29; 43–44; in school education 6–7; social
unitary 47–48; Wester idea of 198 constructivist perspective on 43–44; of
Progress and disillusion: the dialectics of modern technological activities 115; and young
society (Aron) 22 people 13–14, 56
progressivism, scientific management 138 risk aversion, positive impact on school
protests of Tasmania’s hydroelectric dam education 132
construction 22–24 risk management: role of school
public sphere 108–109 newspapers in 95; in universities 45–46
Putin, Vladimir 5 risk society, catastrophic view of 36
risk society theory 6–7, 9–10; “audit
race, and education retention 121–122 society” 46; “blame culture” 44, 52;
Race Relations Act 66 challenges to 42–43; climate change
racism 65–67, 80; in Australia 67; effects of 24–26; Cold War 26; defining 49–50;
65–66; in the UK 66–67 environmental education 26–28; essential
Racism. No Way! 65–66 components of 40–42; future risks 199;
Rahman, Lutfur 126 and gender equity 71–73; historical
readiness assessments for kindergarten and analysis of 20–21; individualisation 187;
Year 1 students 151–152 and mass media 10; and the media 92–94;
 Index 213
moral climate of politics 31–32; moral Second World War, The (Churchill) 48–49
panics 40–41; neoliberal perspective on secondary education, impact of
44; notion of progress 21–22; obesity globalisation on effectiveness of 63–64
77–80; politics in 20; politics of 28–33; second-generation immigrants, educational
“precautionary principle” 166; research achievement 124–125
on 7; restructuring of youth identities sexuality, and bullying 73–76
57–60; rise of Green political parties sexuality education 21, 165–168; in
22–24; science of prevention 57; as social Australia 168; in the US 166–168
construct 37–38; and social media 94–95; sharing economy 50
and trust 42, 50–51; and video games Singapore: influence on international
104–107 school education 172; response to
Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Beck) 25 globalisation 159–161; risk society
risk-taking: as pedagogical strategy impacting education in 11–13; school
187–188; promoting entrepreneurialism curriculum 204
through 188–190 skill formation policies 123
Roberts, Malcom 161 Skinner, B.F. 188
Rogernomics 91 Skinner, Dr Sue 98
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 27 social classes 38–40
Rudd, K. 132 social construct, risk society theory as
Ruddick, S. 58–60 37–38
rules as negative concept in education social constructivist perspective on risk
192–193 43–44
Russian Revolution 29 social control school of educational history
Ryan, Susan 123 139
social justice 63
Safe Schools sexuality program 93–94, 168 social media 10, 109; and Islamophobia
SATs 11 67–68; “precautionary principle” 166;
schools: achievement gap 63; anxiety effect restructuring of youth identities through
on performance in 99–100; bullying 64–65; and risk society theory 94–95
in 73–76; entrepreneurship programs socio-economic status: and education 61–64;
188–190; gender equity issues 71–73; gap between rich and poor 61–62; risks
Islamophobia in 68–69, 126–130; associated with 59–60
libraries, moral panic relating to decline Soviet Union, disintegration of 8–9; see also
of 98–99; managerialism 178–179; moral Cold War
panics in 95–96; and national distrust Stalin, Josef 48
of institutions 50–51; newspapers 95; Stapp, William B. 27
obesity in 165; Operation Trojan horse starting age of compulsory education
127–128; as potential sites of risk 52; 125–126
racism in 65–67; Safe Schools sexuality State of Mind Report 57
program 93–94; social media, role in sterilisation policies 60–61
risk society theory 94–95; video games STIs (sexually transmitted infections),
as part of curriculum 105; see also young alleviating risks of 62
people Strengthening Australia’s schools 123
science: NGSS 163; people’s faith in 93; structuration, and agency 43
of prevention 57; and progress 22; risks Swan, James A. 27
of advancements in 115; role of in
modernity 19 Talley, Nick 79
science curricular, globalism effect on Tasmania 23–24; HEC policy 41–42; Lake
170–172 Peddler 26; politics of environmentalism
scientific management 138; second wave of in 20; relationship between government
184–185 and society in 2–24
Second international handbook on globalisation, Taylorism 138
education and policy research 7 teacher preparation 204–205; in Australia
second wave of scientific management 183; globalism influence on 181–183;
184–185 international imperatives in 186–187;
214 Index
international standards 180–181; United States: education reforms 90;
TEMAG Report 186–187 entrepreneurship programs 189;
teachers, managerialism 178–179 graduation rates 122; high-stakes testing
teaching programs on climate change 162 148–149; Islamophobia in 67–68; media
technological progress 29; effect on young reporting on national standardised
people 58–60; ICT impact on education assessment 149–151; Nation at risk, A
97–99; information technology 64–65; (1983) 183–184; National Environmental
risks created by 115 Education Act 28; national mathematics
TEMAG Report 186–187 curricular, globalism effect on 169–170;
tenets of climate change 25–26 national politics of 2016 30–31; national
Thatcherism 91 standardised assessment 143–144, 148;
“Third Way” 91 NGSS 163–164; obesity in 78–79, 165;
TIMSS (Trends in International prevalence of paedophilia in 70; refugee
Mathematics and Science Study) 11 policies 124–125; response to international
training, skill formation policies 123 imperatives in teacher preparation
transnational influences on education 186–187; second wave of scientific
policy 118–119 management 184–185; sexuality education
Trilling, Lionel 29 166–168; State of Mind Report 57; video
Trump, Donald 5, 9, 10, 25, 30–31, 67–68; games 107; see also Trump, Donald
election of 18; and “fake news” 50–51; universities 204–205; risk management in
use of dog-whistle politics 102–103; use 45–46
of Twitter 101
trust 42; and risk society theory 50–51 video games: and moral panics 106–107;
Trust Barometer 50 as pedagogical device 105–106; violence
Turnbull, Malcolm 159 in 106
Twitter, Trump’s use of 101; see also social violence: technology-based 77; in video
media games 104–107
vocational training, trend in education
UN Conference on the Human towards 117
Environment 28
UNEP (United Nations Environment Ward, Russell 1–2, 4, 22, 33, 109, 198
Program) 28 Washington Consensus 91
UNESCO (United Nations Education waste management 28–29
Scientific and Cultural Organisation) 28; Weber, Max 37–38
support for teacher preparation standards welfare state, Ulrich on 41
180–181 Western idea of progress 22, 198
United Kingdom: Brexit 18, 30, 130; Whitlam Labour Government 45
Casey review 128; Counter-Terrorism Whitman, Robert L. 4
and Security Act 129; entrepreneurship Williamson, John 91
programs 189; gender equity issues 72–73;
graduation rates 122; history curriculum, xenophobia: in the UK 126–130; see also
globalism effect on 172–173; immigration dog-whistle politics; Islamophobia
enforcement 120; Islamophobia in 69,
126–130; media reporting on national Year 1 students, readiness assessments
standardised assessment 149–151; national 151–152
mathematics curricular, globalism effect young people: and anxiety 57; associated
on 169–170; national politics of 2016 risks of 13–14; bullying 73–76; dating
30–31; national standardised assessment abuse 76–77; and family violence 76–77;
145; obesity in 165; Operation Trojan and gender equity 71–73; and obesity
horse 127–128; prevalence of paedophilia 77–80; and paedophilia 70; and racism
in 70; Prevent program 129–130; racism 65–67; restructuring of youth identities
in 66–67; response to international 57–60; and social media 64–65; video
imperatives in teacher preparation 186–187; games 104–107
sexuality education 166, 167; Year 1
readiness assessments 151–152 Zajda, J. 7, 201; on globalisation 120