This paper is part of an ongoing research study on Greek language literacy policies and their implications for students’ knowledge and learning, in lower secondary education (student age 12-15). The research study is carried out in the inner city of Athens, where, as in other national urban settings (e.g. Lipman, 2015), public schools are called to include many vulnerable groups of students (from low socio-economic backgrounds, migrants, refugees etc), as a result of processes of urban restructuring and parental school choice. Schools are also under great pressure by policies of austerity, disinvestment in public education and new forms of educational governance (e.g. competition between schools, intrusion of private agents in the public sector) (Sifakakis, et al., 2016; Traianou, 2013). Under these challenging conditions, appropriate Greek language teaching and learning becomes a key prerequisite for students’ inclusion and successful school performance.
Impoving the literacy skills of disadvandaged groups is a high priority in EU’s and OECD’s social and educational agenda. In official documents, literacy is regarded as crucial for social integration and cohesion in the current conditions shaped by globalization, fiscal crisis and migrant and also as a means for producing skilled human capital and strengthening national competitiveness and growth flows (European Commission, 2012; OECD, 2010). As critical scholars argue, supranational agents, and especially the OECD, diffuse “travelling policies” on literacy through international testings, creating a global curricular and cultural “isomorphism” (Sellar & Lingard, 2014).
Since the 2000s, global policies on literacy have been recontextulised in the Greek educational context, through two curricular reforms for compulsory education. The new curricula introduce changes related to interdisciplinarity, critical literacy and the development of general communication skills, deemed appropriate to everyday life and to contemporary knowledge-based societies (Koustourakis, 2007; Pedagogic Institute, 2011).
In this paper, we embrace critical scholars’ arguments that policy enactments are complex and multi-layered processes of recontextualisation, translation and interpretation (Ball et al., 2012), which have what Ball (1993:16) calls “first and second order effects”: “changes in practice/stuctures” and the “impact of these changes on patterns of social access…and justice”. In order to examine how the Greek language curricular policies affect pedagogic practices and students’ access in specific schools, we revisit conceptualisations of “school context”. We understand “school context” as a nexus of interactive and complex practices and discourses, through which different forms of knowledge are distributed to different groups of students, shaping different pedagogic identities and subjectivities.
Our approach draws mainly on Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse, which describes a set of rules and principles of power and control relations. These rules and principles regulate the selection, organisation, distribution and evaluation of school knowledge (Bernstein, 2000) and form different “relations to and within education” for different student groups (Moore, 2013: 60). Deploying Bernstein’s theoretical concepts, researchers have illuminated processes of classroom interactions and literacy practices which create social hierarchies in knowing, excluding specific groups of students and increasing inequalities (Moss, in press; Singh, 2001). In our work, we also utilise analytical tools from Foucault-inspired perspectives, in order to explore the reciprocal constitutions of power techniques and forms of knowledge, which shape educational professionals’ and students’ subjectivities, at diverse educational spaces. Our paper addresses the following research questions:
1. Through which pedagogic practices are language literacy policies enacted in specific school contexts?
2. To what extent do specific school contexts affect language literacy practices?
3. Which effects do language literacy practices have on students’ relationship to knowledge, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds?