This paper explores the tensions that arise between neoliberal policies (Ball 2016) in England and the transformative potential of implemending critical pedagogies in mainstream schools. It particularly focuses on science education, which is considered to be a subject suitable “only for the clever” (Archer et al., 2015). The paper proposes overcoming relevant tensions through a situated and emancipatory approach to teaching science (Alfandari and Tsoubaris, forthcoming). By doing so, it aligns with international (Bencze, 2017) critical approaches of science education and corresponds to the special call of network NW 04. Methodologically, the research drew on Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal, 1995), in order to create a dialogical and inclusive research environment in the classroom. 

The contemporary English state school is characterised by high school exclusions, a high percentage of which relates to students from low-income families, marginalised communities and/or with ‘special educational needs’ (Graham et al, 2019). Yet, neoliberal education policies, such as the 2016 UK White Paper, conceal the underlying social-political dimension of the issue by assigning the blame on the failure of students’ individual behaviours and capabilities to be part of the school and learning culture (DfE, 2016).

The application of critical pedagogies (Freire, 1970) has become a confrontational act in this context, as it challenges the aforementioned policies. At a theoretical level, critical pedagogies unveil the role that education plays in “silencing the voices of marginalised groups and undercutting the relationship between learning and social change” (Giroux, 2016, p.57). At the level of school practices, relevant classroom activities engage with students' realities and are led by their processes of exploring power structures and knowledge production (Hodson, 2003). As such, critical pedagogies have the potential to transform students’ relationship to their learning.

This paper is the outcome of a joint reflection between a teacher and a researcher on a project implementing critical pedagogies in a science classroom in an inner-city secondary school in England. The process drew inspiration from the theoretical background of STEPWISE (Bencze, 2017), which is a form of critical pedagogy that positions students as agents of a positive change in their schools and wider community (Krstovic, 2017, p. 95). Transferred to a critical engagement with science education, this approach implies that learners acknowledge the different ways in which scientific and technological change affects societies and environments, as well as the fact that it is inextricably linked to power relationships. Furthermore, it supports them to develop their own views and values about science and technology and to take meaningful actions (Hodson, 2003). 

During the project, the teacher involved students in activities (Tsoubaris et al., 2020), expressing their existing knowledge on socio-scientific issues (Reflection phase); learning about suitable research skills (Teaching phase); and conducting their own research-informed open-ended actions (Practice phase). 

As part of this research, students, teacher and researcher, took part in a Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal, 1995) workshop, exploring the power dynamics amongst each other, their relationship with learning and the institution, which the paper reflects on (Alfandari, 2021). The research questions are: how do critical pedagogies applied within science education shift the process of knowledge production and the agency of students within it as learners as well as critical actors? What are the implications this has for the subject of science within the neoliberal education system? The paper suggests that this work is part of a paradigm shift towards critical pedagogies and, as such, provides an insight into the potential of expanding relevant approaches throughout the science curriculum beyond the classroom. It is exploring the transformative potential and the challenges of implementing critical pedagogies in the neoliberal school (Ball, 2016).

The aim of the research was to explore the critical pedagogies implemented throughout the critical science project and critical pedagogies’ abilities to create more inclusive spaces for learning in the context of the soaring exclusion rates outlined above. Considering knowledge as situated, influenced by one's standpoint and background (Haraway, 1988), a qualitative and participatory approach was chosen to explore the multitude of experiences in the classroom. In their concern with inclusive educational practices, the authors were also “concerned with socially just ways of knowing” (Nind, 2014, p. 525), and decided to engage with the very pedagogical framework explored, as well in the research design. They were keen to create a dialogical, reflexive process, engage with hierarchical power dynamics and explore learning as a transformative tool, engaging hereby also with the possibilities and complexities of research in the debate on inclusive education. Wanting to create a shared space for reflection with all participants to explore power dynamics within the classroom, and students’ sense of agency and belonging, the researcher decided to draw on elements of the critical Theatre of the Oppressed. The creative method offered “alternative ground rules for communication” (Ellsworth, 1989, p.317), by introducing exchanges through embodied expressions. As most participants were not experienced in theatre-based expression, this offered the opportunity for a shift in established participation habits, and a diversifying of voices. Theatre of the Oppressed is a participatory practice, based on the principles of critical pedagogies supporting groups in exploring and reflecting on their experiences and engaging with power dynamics around and amongst them, within the creative space of the theatre. The aesthetic space shaped through theatre allows for actions which otherwise might not be possible. Gallagher (2008) argues that working through the arts in research, allows “openings for shifts in power and the reframing of the terms of engagement” (p.69). Theatre of the Oppressed does that by working with physical expressions of embodied knowledge. This enables a different engagement in the dialogue for (research) participants, as they are able to explore different roles through the theatre. In addition to participant observation and interviews, recordings from the theatre workshop served as creative data, giving insights into participants experiences of power, learning and belonging throughout the project, whilst actively engaging with it. Whilst throughout the project power dynamics in the classroom shifted, the workshop allowed for these shifts to be engaged with and explored further.

Overall, the implementation of critical pedagogies was fruitful, yet, the work was framed by the neoliberal institution, which was difficult to surpass. Students themselves were embedded within the taxonomy of neoliberal institutions, and partly understood their success through it. However, they engaged with the learning beyond their usual classroom identities, which troubled fixed power roles and implied a shift in agency. Overall, the work enabled for certain power dynamics between staff, students, institutions as well as the learning to shift, including the very power dynamics laid out by the critical pedagogical framework itself (Alfandari and Tsoubaris, forthcoming). The theatre workshop highlighted the shift in power dynamics between teacher and students throughout the project, and it offered opportunities for further shifts in forming subjectivities beyond the institutional discourse. Methodologically, this contributes to the debate of expanding the possibilities of research on inclusive education. At a time when the government-sponsored private sector increasingly influences the fields of science and technology, it becomes more important than ever for science education to provide young people with the opportunity to critically evaluate these fields and their relationships with societies and environments as well as encourage them to undertake actions to address possible harms (Levinson, 2010). The experience and outcome of the project shows that one way this might be possible is by teaching a science curriculum informed by socio-scientific issues and orientated toward student-led research and action projects. The level of engagement and interest students showed in the critical science project, shows its possibility of changing set learner dynamics. The resistance of the neoliberal institution to the projects’ more structural elements shows its challenging of the neoliberal paradigm of education. Whilst shifts in power dynamics were momentary, they provided an experience to students and teachers of a re-imagined classroom.

Alfandari, N., 2021. Changing the Terms of Engagement-Reflecting on the Use of Image Theatre in Research with Secondary School Students, Onsès-Segarra, J. & Hernández-Hernández, F.(Eds.), Educational Research:(Re) Connecting Communities. Proceedings of ECER 2020. NW 29. Research on Arts Education. Alfandari, N, Tsoubaris, D., (forthcoming). Controversial issues in science: Exploring the power dynamics of applying critical pedagogies in secondary schools. Izquierdas. Archer, L., Dewitt, J. and Osborne, J., 2015. Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Science education, 99(2), 199-237. Ball, S., 2016. Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046-1059. Bencze, L. ed., 2017. Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments: STEPWISE (Vol. 14). Springer. Boal, A., 1995. Rainbow of desire. London, Routledge. DfE, 2016. “Educational excellence everywhere”,.GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere [Accessed 23 July 2021] Ellsworth, E., 1989. Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy, Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 297–325. Freire, P., 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). New York, Continuum, 2007. Gallagher, K., 2008. The art of methodology: A collaborative science, in: The methodological dilemma. Routledge, 83–98. Giroux, H.A., 2016. Beyond pedagogies of repression. Monthly Review, 67(10) Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S., Street, C. and Hinds, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion: consultation outcome: Department for Education, May 2019. Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies, 14 (3), 575–599. Hodson, D., 2003. Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International journal of science education, 25(6), 645-670. Krstovic, M. (2017) Learning About Youth Engagement in Research-Informed and Negotiated Actions on Socio-scientific Issues. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments (Vol. 14, pp. 93–114). Springer International Publishing. Levinson, R., 2010. Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence?. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69-119. Nind, M., 2014. Inclusive research and inclusive education: why connecting them makes sense for teachers’ and learners’ democratic development of education, Cambridge Journal of Education, 44 (4), 525–540. Parsons, C., 2018, July. The continuing school exclusion scandal in England. In Forum (Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 245-254). Lawrence and Wishart. Tsoubaris, D., Bencze, L., Sheila, C., & Majd, Z., 2020. Practical suggestions for promoting science student actions to overcome social and environmental harms. School Science Review, 102(379), 64–70.