The Datafication of Primary and Early Years Education

Policy and the image of the child: a critical analysis of drivers and levers in English early years curriculum policy

“…Furthermore, the more recent review of primary and early years assessment (DfE, 2017b) makes it clear that any new baseline assessment will be in the form of a test rather than an observational assessment that is carried out over time. This is despite the alternative argument that observation provides a more accurate and rounded view of children's skills and abilities and it appears to contradict research that shows there is no evidence that baseline tests are accurate predictors of future expected progress (Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2018). Again this demonstrates that one perspective about suitable methods of assessment and accountability measures is being privileged while other possible discourses are being silenced.…”

“…Teacher, Northside cited inBradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2018, 50) Bradbury and Roberts Holmes (2018). go on to demonstrate how this 'datafication' of schools and early years settings affects everyday practice and impacts on young children's identities, relationships and individual learning.…”

Teacher accountability, datafication and evaluation: A case for reimagining schooling

“…Contemporary teacher accountability systems globally have become rooted in testing, evaluation and dis/incentivization as means for shaping teacher practice and defining teacher 'quality' (Berliner 2018; Lingard, 2010; Smith 2016). In the name of equity, student protection, and global competitiveness, high-stakes accountability practices have steadily weakened teacher expertise, authority and professionalism by constraining the capacity for teachers to exercise professional discretion (Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2017;Hardy, 2018;Perryman, 2009). In the US, for example, teachers are not only responsible for complying with multiple strands of standards, including content (e.g., Common Core State Standards), teaching (e.g., InTASC standards), and discipline-specific standards (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/English), but they must also fulfill requirements for evaluation frameworks and rubrics (e.g., Danielson Framework for Teaching) associated with state-and/or federal-level policies (Garver, 2018;Taubman, 2009).…”

“…A growing subfield of education researchers are calling this the "datafication" of education, where every aspect of schooling, students, teachers, etc., is rendered as data to be collected, analyzed, surveilled, and controlled (Bradbury 2019;Bradbury & Guy-Holmes, 2018;Buchanan & McPherson, 2019;Selwyn, 2015;Williamson, 2017a). The "datafied teacher," in particular, faces increased pressures to rely on numerical data (e.g., standardized achievement tests, value-added model output) and evaluative tools (e.g., observation rubrics) to guide their pedagogical decisions and classroom practices (Holloway, 2019;Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2017;Hardy, 2018). In these data environments, the "quality" of the teacher is narrowly defined by numbers, while "improvement" is defined as increasing these numbers, rather than improving practice and fostering collaboration (Perryman, 2009;Taubman, 2009).…”

Rethinking 'Fixed-Ability Thinking' and Grouping Practices: questions, disruptions and barriers to change in primary and early years education

“…As Drummond and Yarker argue, 'Fixed 'ability' thinking purports to render the pupil uncontrollably known, at least so far as the school is concerned ' (2013, p5). This 'knowing' and measurability is an attractive perspective, particularly in a 'datafied' educational context dominated by ascribing numerical values to children (Bradbury and Roberts-Holmes, 2017b). Thus 'forms of determinism -or 'bell curve thinking' -have been normalised in education, most notably in the fallacious view that 'intelligence' is distributed in the population according to such a curve' (Drummond and Yarker, 2013 p6).…”