54 limited (Roofe, 2015) and teachers are left to their own devices and the expectations of their schools.
Wenger (1998) proposed communities of practice (CoP) where particular communities such as a school or neighbouring schools that share similar contexts can work together. Therefore, teachers that teach in similar contexts have avenues to discuss ways to improve their classroom practice and even ease their work burdens. While this is a worthwhile idea and can assist teachers to localise national policies, Babione and Shea (2005) stress that there is very little time during the work day for teachers to be communicative and to collaborate on the context of their teaching. Sowder (2007) points out that sharing a shared vision of bringing about reform initiatives is a professional development initiative but also agrees that the demands are too much on the mathematics teachers’ work for them to find time to partake in such initiatives, unless it is demanded by the state. Then it will be forced and teachers may not be willing to partake in such initiatives. More thought and preparation needs to carried out by the state to bring about curriculum reform and using one national policy for different contexts will not achieve reform education in mathematics.
School contexts are different from one another with some similarities structurally but differences in the social networks within schools, diverse students in the classroom as well as differences in beliefs that each teacher has. Context and its uniqueness is an essential factor to consider. There is sometimes an experience of mutual understanding between people which Gadamer (1975, p. 305) calls a "fusion of horizon". In this thesis there will be a "fusion of horizon" (Gadamer, 1975, p. 305) between a teacher and the knowledge within the curriculum policy where the teacher understands the effect of the policy change on the curriculum and the implications it has for their teaching methods. However, once there is another change in policy the fusion breaks again.
55 understand it is to separate 'govern' from 'mentality'. One governs by invading another's mind and once that invasion is internalised the person becomes a subject. The interpersonal power relations will be explained using the following example. If a teacher works differently from the norm to do his/her work, his/her colleagues will let him/her know that she should follow the rules and regulation consistent with the rules and prescriptions of the school. If the teacher does follow what his/her colleagues are doing, this makes him/her a subject. In South Africa that political sovereignty would be the state with its policies prescribing what should be done in the classroom. Governmentality is defined by Dean (2010) as a governing of collectively held views through many discourses that guide individuals to act according to societal norms.
Furthermore, schools are being put into the spotlight as various political groups vie for power (Journell, 2011). Hursh (2007) takes further this argument in claiming that those that have the most power such as the ruling state will therefore use their power to set regulations and rules via policies which can be monitored through standardised testing thereby making individuals accountable. Hence, these rules will therefore force individuals to obey. It would seem that these rules and prescriptions are not only to demonstrate power to the individual but as a means of control of opposition political parties. 'Governmentality' is therefore used to create governable subjects through the use of various techniques to control, normalize and shape the conduct of individuals (Fimyar, 2008). Even though there is this normalising behaviour there is always deviant behaviour which is called resistance by Foucault (1972).
'Governmentality' works on individuals to govern them. 'Governmentality', therefore, works as the self-governance of individuals as well as to govern (Dent, 2009). The discussion will begin at the level of the individual. It shapes and manages individuals who take an active part in the process as it constrains the free choices of individuals by demarcating legitimate choices from illegitimate choices in accordance with normality (Joronen, 2013; Ove, 2013; Dean, 2010;
Bevir, 2004). This is done by encouraging people to regulate themselves for their own personal gain and for the benefit of all and is circulated through daily practices which individuals take part in as if by choice (Ove, 2013). Foucault (1978) says this type of power that the state exerts on individuals is through techniques of self-examination and confession. It can be explained quite simply by knowing that the interventions by the state through curriculum policies is said to promote democracy and equal education for all. Teachers will subscribe to such interventions especially those who have been marginalised by apartheid. In so doing they will make the legitimate choice of implementing new curriculum policies as required by the state
56 to promote democracy no matter the work and the confusion that is inherent with the multiplicity of curriculum policies.
Institutions such as schools with their procedures and practices all play a part in subjectifying the individual (Dent, 2009). Subjects are formed through the network of social relations that serve to homogenise populations through knowledge and separation (Dent, 2009). Using the same curriculum policies assists in homogenising knowledge, making the same knowledge available to all. All students in the secondary school, doing the FET (Further Education and Training, Grades 10 to 12) phase in South Africa, are required to take mathematics or mathematics literacy with no individual choice, thus homogenising mathematics education.
Subsequently, subjects are the individuals (teachers in the school) who serve this task to bring about the same policy to all without recognizing the individual talents of the students. At the same time the separation that Dent (2009) refers to is the classrooms that are separated from one another and the desks that further separate students. Again this is about power and control;
through separation there is little time for discussion. In a school day with the number of tasks teachers have, they have little time for discussion or resistance as that time is taken up with implementing the new curriculum and most of the discussion centres around ways to implement new curricula. There is now an assumption that it is the teachers’ individual choice to implement the curriculum as required by the department as it is the right thing to do.
The term subjects are shared by both Althusser (1971), as related to ideology and power, and Foucault (1978), as related to power. Both discuss the power relations inherent in creating the subjects and give adequate reasoning for them. The difference is that Foucault (1978) dismisses the concept of ideology as he believes that subjects are able to know and express their exploitation and show resistance. For the purpose of this thesis both are relevant to understanding why teachers implement the new curricula in the way they do. Foucault (1978) advises that where there is power there is resistance. Challenging the system shows countering of domination and starts with self-resistance by recognizing and situating oneself in that system (Ettlinger, 2011; McWhorter, 2010; Cheah, 2007). Transformation can be achieved if the self, connects with empowerment via critical theory to make the place a better place by critiquing the existing system (Ettlinger, 2011). We all have the ability to show resistance, and resistance can be through mathematics teachers teaching the way they were taught at school rather than
57 adopting the new curriculum policies. Or resistance can be shown by challenging contradictions inherent in policies that demarcate an equitable education for all but then advocate uniformity in policies and external examinations that serve to separate students according to their abilities. Even with the democratic education foreseen by the state there still exist socio-economic divides (Journell, 2011), based on the backgrounds of students and resources that they have to bring about equitable education for all. However, Ettlinger (2011) does warn that resistance to a system is a continuous process and requires self-discipline and proactive reflexivity and very few people are able to keep up with this continuity, Therefore normalising behaviour in keeping with departmental and societal norms persists (Ettlinger, 2011). With the social structures within schools making sure one adheres to such norms, such resistance through resisting curriculum control and adherence to rules and regulations is usually curbed along the way.
Power relations are intrinsic to all spheres of an individual from the family to the school and through 'governmentality'. Foucault (1978) shows how people are governed through 'freedom of choice' to abide by and follow through with new curriculum policies. Resistance is also a viable option but, as discussed, resistance is infrequent and can be curbed. Teachers, therefore, find themselves implementing curriculum policies as they should be as it is the legitimate way to abide by societal norms.