This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 05:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Pastoral Care in Education: AnInternational Journal of Personal,Social and Emotional DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rped20

Academic care, classroom pedagogyand the house group teacher: ‘makinghope practical’ in uncertain timesBruce Vincent Addison aa Anglican Church Grammar School , Brisbane , AustraliaPublished online: 12 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Bruce Vincent Addison (2012) Academic care, classroom pedagogy and thehouse group teacher: ‘making hope practical’ in uncertain times, Pastoral Care in Education:An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 30:4, 303-315, DOI:10.1080/02643944.2012.688064

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2012.688064

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Academic care, classroom pedagogy

and the house group teacher: ‘making

hope practical’ in uncertain times

Bruce Vincent Addison*Anglican Church Grammar School, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 24 November 2011; final version received 23 January 2012)

The development of an ethos of academic care is about creating the structures, both formal and

informal, that cater for the developmental learning needs of students. Such an approach cele-

brates individual difference in the belief that academic care will not only underpin improved aca-

demic performance but will also build confidence in the ability to learn. For over 30 years the

economic field has been all pervasive. Human endeavour seemed entrapped by the demands of

efficiency and the profit motive. The language of nurture and care, language that forms such an

essential part of educational discourse, was consumed by economism. It is now time to redefine

educational practice to celebrate pedagogy and learning. The development of an ethos of aca-

demic care is one way in which educators can start to redraw the boundaries. This paper draws

together a number of disparate themes based on my observations over many years. They are

based on my various roles as a curriculum leader, syllabus writer and teacher, as well as my dis-

cussions with parents and students concerning digital learning technologies. The essential pre-

mise is that academic care matters and that therefore schools need to commit to its strategic

implementation. It is a contention of this paper that there is a renewed role for the house group

teacher as ‘learning hero’ in a structure that is based on an ethos of academic care.

Keywords: market failure; uncertainty; digital revolution; academic care; pedagogy;

neuroscience; learning hero; house group teacher

Uncertainty, crisis and the hangover of economic absolutism

It is a contention of this paper that developing an ethos of academic care is one

way in which educators can meet the challenge of uncertainty. Uncertainty

generated by the collapse of an economic philosophy will underscore our young

⁄Anglican Church Grammar School, Oaklands Parade, East Brisbane, Brisbane 4169, Australia.

Email: bruce.addison@bigpond.com

Pastoral Care in Education

Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2012, pp. 303–315

ISSN 0264-3944 (print)/ISSN 1468-0122 (online)/12/040303–13

� 2012 NAPCE

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2012.688064

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

people’s lives. Nightly, the television news conveys the contagion of economic fail-

ure. We live in a world where the socialisation of private losses kept an economic

system afloat. This changed the rules of the game forever as the scarce resources

of the state were used to underpin the ongoing survival of ‘free’ markets——free

markets that failed under the excess of ‘irrational exuberance’ (Greenspan, 2007;

Gamble, 2009). As educators we must prepare our students for their futures chan-

ged inextricably by this reality. Financial resources will be less plentiful, public

resources will be less abundant and employment less secure. Intellectual entrepre-

neurialism and creative problem-solving will be important skillsets in such an envi-

ronment. This will present significant challenges for educational leadership. It will

require steadfast student-centeredness as well as a creative, tailored and caring

approach to learning and pedagogy. Developing an ethos of academic care will

arm our students with the resilience necessary to combat the unknown with confi-

dence and problem-solving temerity.

The belief in the self-regulating power of the market or economic absolutism led,

in part, to this crisis of market failure (Yeatman, 2000; Lemke, 2001). Australian

schools, like others globally, have not been left untouched by the dominance of

market-based principles. Some scholars have called the phenomenon performativity

(Gewirtz & Ball, 2000; Gerwirtz, 2002; Ball, 2003) whilst others have called it a

market conception (Rizvi, 1993; O’Brien & Dowd, 2002). No matter what it is

called, our schools have been grappling with some form of marketisation or econo-

mism for many years (Lingard et al., 2000; Anderson, 2004; Kenway & Fahey,

2010). In Australia, the national testing regime as well as the MySchool website

(http://www.myschool.edu.au/) are witness, in part, to the continued infiltration of

this market-based economic project. This thinking holds that competition and pub-

lic disclosure to be motivators for improvement even though competitive pressures

do not necessarily generate across the board improvement (Levin, 2010).

There is ample evidence to suggest that educators have been influenced signifi-

cantly on many levels by this economism and marketisation both in their private

and professional lives (Rizvi, 1993; Gewirtz, 2002; Ball, 2003; Addison, 2007;

Keddie et al., 2011). On one level, they witness market failure and shake their

head in disbelief. On the other, they are told to trust in the precepts of the market

because its efficiency dividends will, in the long term, be professionally cleansing,

motivating and rewarding. Hardy and Boyle (2011, p. 215) note that this is often

in the form of ‘high-stakes testing and more reductionist accountability strategies’

often at the same time ‘as there is evidence that alternate assessment and learning

processes lead to better student learning practices’. Keddie et al. concur, noting

‘performative and competitive schooling cultures of high accountability and com-

pliance suggest an undermining and mistrust of teachers and their practice and a

denial of teacher agency’ (2011, p. 76).

With market collapse, schools——organisations that have for so long been con-

taged by non-educational values——have the opportunity to rediscover their peda-

gogical core. This development may have to be at the grassroots level given this

economic calamity. In such an environment policy tends to be imposed on schools

304 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

for socio-political purposes rather than educational ones (Hartley, 2010). If peda-

gogues at the grassroots level invest time and energy in developing genuine models

of academic care, this will help to again foreground the importance of pedagogy

and learning to the centre-stage of schools. This will require leadership that is

‘transparent, collegial, consultative and dispersed’ (Keddie et al., 2011, p. 76),

capable of nurturing an ethos of learning as care.

Making hope practical: the importance of pedagogy and developmentalism

as care

Lingard et al. note that leadership in schools, among other things, is about ‘making

hope practical in a world where despair would seem far more convincing’ (2003,

p. vii). Academic care is one such way of making ‘hope practical’. This must be

done so that students can become resilient learners——learners who are encouraged

to stumble, fail and succeed. Resilience is a concept that has been used extensively

in the context of pastoral care (Doll & Lyon, 1998; Begg, 1999; Nadge, 2005).

Given the challenges that the twenty-first century is presenting with the ever-pres-

ent and often challenging nature of the information and digital revolution, resil-

ience as a tool in the armoury of learning is also now essential. Encouraging our

young people to think about information carefully and creatively in a world in

which they have known nothing other than the ease of access to information is of

crucial importance. Allowing them to stumble, fail and succeed on this journey

will be empowering as well as ‘relevant, exciting and inclusive’ (Craft, 2011, p.

17). Allowing them to stumble, fail and succeed, when constructing an underlying

ethos of academic care, will be highly desirable to building the ‘synaptic strength’

if not conditioning (Doidge, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2008) as far as the depth of

learning experience is concerned. Powerful pedagogy carefully constructed in a

context of care——care that is much more than rhetorical but strategically imple-

mented——may well be a way to ‘make hope practical’ on many levels.

The reality of uncertainty is that we have to arm our students with a realistic

understanding of their academic potential given their current developmental jour-

ney. In this environment, flexibility, creative problem-solving, self-esteem and gen-

uine resilience, founded on the confidence to fail, will be crucial if not bankable

skills. This is where the development of an ethos of academic care can do much to

establish positive emotional landscapes or ‘emoscapes’ on which to build the learn-

ing frontiers of students (Kenway & Fahey, 2010). In such an environment the

confidence to grow academically can be developed longitudinally in an environ-

ment in which trust and nurture is pivotal to the educational journey.

Uncertainty, digital revolution and the ‘homescape’: academic care as an

educator’s response

The notion of broader social uncertainty is not at all unusual to the educator. Per-

form an archaeological dig into the structures at any school and the results would

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

be a testament to this statement (Addison, 2007). Wars, depressions and the

threat of nuclear annihilation, for example, have before cast their shadow. What is

different now is that there are a number of forces unique to this era that will do

much to foreground academic care as foundational to the educational project.

Economic insecurity, robotics, artificial intelligence and decreasing mortality rates,

to name a few, will create both opportunities and enormous challenges.

Just as the digital revolution helped enable economic collapse, so too has it

transformed children’s lives. Schools can ‘police’ their digital footprint and usage,

albeit imperfectly, but parents cannot to the same extent. Parents do not have the

same sophisticated monitoring software, are tired due to work pressures and risk

relationship tension and breakdown with their children if they set boundaries that

are too restrictive. This is especially the case given the prevalence and apparent

importance of social networking in today’s youth culture (Coleman, 2011). The

digital revolution has meant that many children no longer have spaces that are

under sole adult influence and supervision. Craft (2011) has called this the plural-

ity of space. They are masters at the dexterity needed to hide clandestine com-

puter screen activity let alone more sophisticated approaches to digital subterfuge.

The cyberworld is invasive. It blurs boundaries. On the one hand, it is emancipa-

tory because it allows virtual reality to extend the imagination and to explore new

frontiers. On the other, it destroys the notion of quiet time and adult-centred

directedness that has been so important for the developmental journey of genera-

tions past. Boundary blurring, caused by digital accessibility, has created a new

dimension to friction on the home front. As Furlong and Davies (2011) note:

Young people’s ubiquitous access to mobile technologies, especially the mobile phone,

means that conventional institutional boundaries between home, school and leisure are

increasingly breaking down. (2011, pp. 1–2)

Not only are our young people being confronted with a cocktail of uncertainty

caused by systemic collapse, digital access is also creating discord and uncertainty

domestically, at least in homes that once could have been considered mostly nur-

turing. Because of this change. the notion of ‘school’ work and ‘home’ work has

changed. Work at home is no longer an uninterrupted ‘haven’ away from friends.

Today children have no space free from digitally constructed distraction. The

potential for distraction is enormous and, because of it, the concept of learning at

home has changed (Sefton-Green, 2008; Furlong & Davies, 2011). This new real-

ity requires fresh skillsets not only for students but also from parents. Digital tech-

nology has reinvigorated curiosity intergenerationally. This is how parents can

encourage learning on the home front and neutralise, in part, the challenges asso-

ciated with digital invasiveness. Instead of bemoaning computer use or abuse, a

more productive or proactive strategy would be to actively role-model the curiosity

or wonder associated with learning so that the home becomes a natural extension

of the school or, more importantly, so that the school becomes a natural extension

of the home. This in many respects is the gift of digital technology. As Craft notes,

‘children actively explore their environments with encouragement and support

306 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

from adults, constructing meaning in context’ (2011, p. 73). Through creating

environments in which genuine exploration is encouraged, creativity of thought

will emerge as a genuine tool of intellectual and extension and enrichment. As Lee

concludes:

creativity is not expressed in a rule-governed, mechanistic relation between thought

and action, but rather resides in receptivity, openness, freedom, curiosity, and the sub-

jective relation between thought and action. (1993, p. 306)

This is how a new social contract can be forged in the home. It is through role-

modelling patience and harnessing, rather than ignoring, the digital reality that

new partnerships of understanding will emerge. A refocus of the concept of aca-

demic care may help to recast the social contract in the home and indeed between

the home and the school. Disciplined mindsets relating to learning are now of cru-

cial importance as a means by which to help our young people combat the digital

reality that will only become more invasive as the twenty-first century continues to

unfold.

Academic care: what does it mean for both student and organisation?

Academic care is an ethos that a school can develop and nurture. Uncertainty and

digital invasiveness has made this a crucial imperative. Academic care must be a

strategic imperative engineered for student benefit and it must be a part of a

broader ‘ethic of care’ (Noddings, 1991; Starrat, 1994). It denotes trust, a fidu-

ciary duty built on the secure foundations of pedagogue to learner. By an ‘ethic of

care’ I am referring to an inclusive culture that can be infused holistically through-

out a school. In this sense it transcends any notion of the old pastoral–academic

divide (Best, 1989; Lang, 1989). These terms are no longer mutually exclusive but

rather form part of a DNA sequence that codifies the very lifeblood of a school.

Such an ‘ethic of care’ would be centred on ‘caring relationships, high expectation

messages and opportunities for meaningful participation and contribution’ (Benard

quoted in Hearn et al., 2006, p. 19). These messages form the essential ingredients

on which a culture of academic care would be based.

Nadge defines academic care very succinctly:

Academic care involves enhancing student learning and well-being through pedagogies

and processes that are sympathetic to student needs and embedded in learning experi-

ences. (2005, p. 28)

It is interesting that Nadge emphasises ‘pedagogies and processes’. Pedagogy is the

underlying syntax of education, making it a discipline. Processes imply action to

facilitate intent. So for academic care to succeed, words must be backed up by a

structural reality. Schools must at least ensure the possibility of the development

of an ethos of academic care and design programmes, structures as well as the

empowerment of personnel that will reflect and enable it to flourish. The key issue

is that an ethos of academic care is based on the support of learning and not just

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

performance (Carnell & Lodge, 2002). The focus of economism on performance

is very damaging. It ignores developmental considerations and the reality that stu-

dents mature intellectually at different ages. Indeed, performance may very well be

an offshoot of an ethos of academic care.

Academic care requires structures both formal and informal that foster,

develop and nurture student learning. In such an environment, while competition

and performance would still be key student motivators, they would operate in

tandem alongside a culture of learning by stumbling, learning by failing as well

as learning by achieving. Through stumbling, failing and achieving, learning

would be seen as a positive experience and a form of genuine academic resilience

would be secured for the learner. In such environments, learning would be con-

structed as an ongoing celebration of achievement informed by a strategy of

developing and building upon personal bests (Martin, 2010). This personal best

strategy represents a form of academic developmentalism, individually tailored

for success.

Resilience would be genuine and not rhetorical in these circumstances where

learning is a robust exchange, and failing would be seen as a legitimate part of an

ongoing learning journey. Such an approach would help to foster growth mindsets

(Dweck, 2006) so important to a healthy learning culture. As Dweck notes:

People tell me they start to catch themselves when they are in the throes of the fixed

mindset-passing up a chance for learning, feeling labeled by a failure, or getting dis-

couraged when something requires a lot of effort. And then they switch themselves into

a growth mindset-making sure they take the challenge, learn from failure, or continue

their effort. (2006, p. 46)

Growth mindsets encourage a positive approach to academic endeavour and would

go a long way to foster and develop a community of learners and what Craft

(2011, p. 21) calls ‘possibility thinking’. The uncertainty and dynamism of the

twenty-first century requires such an approach as the possibilities, potentialities

and uncertainties are enormous.

The development of such a twenty-first-century model of academic care requires

policy development at the strategic level, curriculum development at the senior

management and faculty level as well as an in-service commitment at the teacher

level. Any notion of academic care will only work if it is genuine and if at its foun-

dation the ‘care’ aspects of its mission are believable and sustainable. Its founda-

tion must be based on a ‘theology of care’ because our humanness connects so

powerfully with this type of genuine overarching nurture. Powerful relationships

exist between care, nurture and achievement, although at times any notion of opti-

mal achievement maybe delayed because of developmental complexity. Academic

care is about learning and not performance. If woven into the fabric of a school

environment it will have performance dividends for students. Such an underlying

philosophy could do much to establish a school as a ‘home for the mind’ (Costa,

2008) as students begin to engage more fully with the learning process. The sci-

ence of learning is now providing educators with a platform on which to formulate

308 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

a pedagogy of care. This could provide an avenue for educators to seize a vacuum

created by geo-political uncertainty and start a grassroots action for change.

Neuroscience and academic care: the need for built-in not bolt-on

As alluded to, neuroscience is offering a number of interesting insights into a sci-

entific groundwork for learning and teaching (Doidge, 2007; Fischer, 2009). It has

much to offer schools in the crafting of an ethos of academic care. The OECD

notes:

Neuroscience can provide new notions and inspiration to do things differently. The

challenge is to find out how to give purpose to learning, and how to encourage the

internal drive to want learn something. (2004, pp. 10–11)

There is much written about neuro education and this paper is not about its tech-

nical considerations. Neuroscience asserts that ‘there is a common acceptance that

human learning, in terms of the formation of memory, occurs by changes in the

patterns of connectivity between neurons——or “synaptic plasticity”’ (Howard-

Jones, 2008, p. 363) or ‘the brains ability to restructure itself’ (Doidge, 2007, p.

213). Neuroscience cannot tell us how to design practice but it can give some

indication as to how to tweak practice in the light of recent research. As Goswami

concludes, ‘improved knowledge about how the brain learns should assist educa-

tors in creating optimal learning environments’ (2008, p. 381). John Dewey again

was prophetic many years ago, observing:

There is no ground for assuming that “thinking” is a special, isolated natural tendency

that will bloom inevitably in due season simply because various sense and motor activi-

ties have been freely manifested before; or because observation, memory, imagination

and manual skill have been previously exercised without thought. Only when thinking

is constantly employed in using the senses and muscles for guidance and application of

observations and movements, is the way prepared for subsequent higher types of think-

ing. (1910, p. 65)

Educational practice may well have to rediscover the importance of facts and fig-

ures or the importance of ‘mental rehearsing or mental practice (Doidge, 2007, p.

203), alongside inquiry learning and constructivism, if educators are to take full

advantage of neuroscience’s insights. In Queensland this approach would be quite

revolutionary because many syllabi have for many years diminished the importance

of content testing in the area of summative assessment. Neuroscience can certainly

inform practice although great care must taken in ascribing instructional absolut-

ism to many of its key findings (Howard-Jones, 2008).

If a school was to offer a subject called ‘learning how to learn’ or ‘boosted learn-

ing’ in early high school it would probably be doomed to fail. The majority of stu-

dents would disengage from the curriculum, and the staff teaching it would as

well. The reason for the failure for the students would be that it was divorced from

specific subject content. Instead of a bolt-on subject sitting outside content-based

disciplines, infusing academic care based on well-grounded and pedagogical

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

practice needs to be infused contextually across core academic disciplines. This

would ensure the creation of a learning culture based on best practice. Subject-

based teachers must be trained and re-trained in recent neuro-research. They must

re-invest in learning strategy thinking catering for individual difference and devel-

opmental reality. As Nadge concludes, ‘academic care acknowledges that beliefs

about self and learning are shaped by classroom contexts, processes and relation-

ships’ (2005, p. 30). As educators we will best academically care for our students

if we design structures that enable them to stumble, fail and achieve while

strengthening and conditioning their memories.

This is the gift that neuroscience has given to twenty-first-century pedagogical

practice. School administrators must provide the resources to ensure that class-

rooms are intellectually dynamic and encourage and reward best practice models

of academic care. There is no point having the research (and empirical brain-imag-

ing evidence that may prove it) if teaching practice remains dormant in the twenti-

eth century. While this is the case, great care must be taken to ensure that there is

not a misapplication of neuroscience research (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan, 2010)

or that ‘neurononsense’ (Purdy, 2008) does not arise to overshadow the possibility

for tailored academic care in this area. As Pickering and Howard-Jones conclude:

Teachers wish to know more about the brain and the mind——and to receive this infor-

mation in a relevant and accessible form——to augment and refine their existing knowl-

edge and this support their own decisions about what works in the context of their

particular classroom. (2007, p. 112)

At the systemic level, syllabus writers must be very careful to ensure that syllabi

reflect assessment methodologies that assess content and remove some of the over-

arching focus on the inquiry process. Perhaps we as educators have to rediscover

the validity of well-constructed content-based examinations, alongside the out-

comes already associated with inquiry-based learning, in order to cater for the

developmental needs of our students (Howard-Jones, 2008) and thus cater for

what neuroscience research has contributed to pedagogical practice in recent

times. This then would be academic care, informed by neuroscience, and based on

best practice if not next practice.

Thinking about academic care in such circumstances, informed by neurosci-

ence-based literature, perhaps indicates that inquiry-based or constructivist

approaches to learning have to be re-considered or re-designed in order to assist

student learning, the building of memory and, to a certain extent, learning disci-

pline. These are issues on which an ethos of academic care would be well

founded.

Academic care: engineering a new role for the house tutor or back to the

future

There needs to be pedagogical responsibility in schools for academic care, other-

wise it is a trite and meaningless term. Mention has already been made for the

310 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

need for academic care to be built into core academic disciplines so that students

learn about learning ‘in context’ from teachers who are passionate about their sub-

jects. Such an approach will save reform fatigue from ‘bolt-on blues’ from students

and staff who do not want to be a part of the bolt-on process. It may be surprising

to suggest that the house group teachers also should have a pivotal role to play in

the development of an ethos of academic care. The reason why this environment

is so pivotal is because of the strong interpersonal bonds that are forged in these

environments (Wentzel, 1997). In such environments there can be a ‘motivational

displacement’ (Noddings, 1984) between carer and ‘caree’ capable of very power-

ful learning outcomes. It is essential for learning and flexibility of thought to be

role-modelled away from formal classroom settings. Adults need to show that they

have not stopped thinking and learning. The house group teacher is positioned

ideally to breathe new life into the maxim ‘a love of learning’.

Some of the older literature has much to say in this area (Marland, 1974; Black-

burn, 1975; Best & Ribbins, 1983). When looking at the need for academic care

in our schools it certainly challenges the familiar organisational thrust of dividing

students into ‘creatures to be “taught” and creatures to be “cared for”’ (Buckley,

1980, p. 182). Marland and Rogers went as far as to state that the tutor’s ‘subject’

is the ‘learner and their learning’ (1997, p. 12). Lodge (2000, p. 35) contends that

‘the most effective tutors are those who describe their role as “someone who helps

them learn”’. She continues:

The tutor can be explicit about learning processes by encouraging talk within the group

about learning, what they mean by it, developing a shared vocabulary or language to

enable them to talk about and reflect on learning, to describe effective strategies, to

consider the meanings of motivation, differences in learning styles and to engage with

others who are engaged with learning. (Lodge, 2000, p. 39)

This may be the case in some of the academic literature but it needs to be tested

by thorough research. Some relatively recent research (Chittenden, 1999, 2006)

would suggest that tutors in traditional house systems are not really primarily ped-

agogues-in-chief. My assertion is that the role of the tutor or house group teacher

should now be refashioned as one of pedagogue-in-chief and the role of behaviour-

alist-in-chief should be seamlessly merged. As house group teacher /pedagogues,

what have we got to give that readily falls under this banner of care——academic

care? We must be gatekeepers of learning and role-modellers of learning and not

just clerical proceduralists.

Capelli (2009) speaks of the importance of ‘learning heroes’ in the lives of chil-

dren. It is my contention that house group teachers have a pivotal role to play as

learning heroes and as chief pedagogues in an environment founded on an ethos

of academic care. Learning needs to be seen as a part of everyday life, as a part of

a natural inquisitiveness role-modelled as part of a transparent normalcy capable

of generating deep learning. Such an approach to academic care should transcend

any notion of the vacuous academic/pastoral divide (Clark, 2008). An environment

of academic care in the house group room just may be one way to build a culture

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of academic resilience, discernment and wonder. Given the uncertainty generated

by the current geo-political climate to the constructive and destructive wonder of

digital technology, it is not surprising that this concept of a ‘learning hero’ gains

traction. Discernment is a very difficult skill requiring wisdom and experience.

Today young people must make decisions about information that it seems only

yesterday was not even within their reach. Academic care matters, both in formal

and informal contexts, with this very difficult issue of discernment. Consequently

there is scope to rediscover the role of the house group teacher as pedagogue,

learning hero and helpful discerner of information away from competitive class-

room environments.

The house group teacher has a special role to develop between relationship and

learning. Carnell and Lodge (2002, p. 13) note that the best way to achieve this is

through ‘relationship, trust and openness’. Hatt, when looking at a similar issue,

notes:

The original meaning of pedagogy is grounded in the relational and intentional respon-

sibility of adult to child. The vulnerability of the child calls forth a loving attitude from

the adult, as pedagogue, that is directed toward the physical security and the social,

emotional, and educational well being of the child as student. (2005, p. 671)

This thinking is somewhat revolutionary given current practice. It moves the

house group teacher away from the traditional custodian of the roll, the dissemina-

tor of information, the organiser of sports carnivals and the writer of ‘pastoral’

comments. It moves the house group teacher to the position of role-modeller of

learning, practical pedagogue and academic carer in chief. This change will take

much resolve from senior management to steer such a reform agenda. The ulti-

mate motivation may be care for the individual but the ultimate motivation just

may come from an economistic hangover if such an academic care agenda can ulti-

mately lead to better league table performance.

Conclusion

There are a number of reasons why an ethos of academic care is of crucial

importance to schools operating in complex twenty-first-century environments.

Uncertainty is going to be the constant companion of the young people in our

care. Our generation has seen to that. Economic collapse has made this an

absolute certainty. The verities of the market are no longer givens. Digital real-

ity, let alone escapism, has changed students’ work and home lives forever.

Schools need to develop an ethos of academic care in order to underpin the

learning needs of their students. Neuroscience has provided fresh avenues to

think about pedagogy anew. It is beholden on educators to renew and embed

pedagogical thought in subject content areas as well as to encourage home

group teachers as learning heroes in order to achieve this. Such an approach is

a way in which educational leaders can indeed ‘make hope practical’ in

challenging times.

312 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

Addison, B. (2007) A Bourdieuan analysis of contemporary principal leadership practice: an interview

study of Queensland secondary school principals. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of

Queensland, Brisbane.

Alferink, L. & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010) Brain-(not) based education: dangers of misunder-

standing and misapplication of neuroscience research, Exceptionality, 18(1), 42–52.

Anderson, D. S. (2004) Where the buck stops: the politics of accountability and the school principal in

Queensland, 1989–1999. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technol-

ogy, Melbourne.

Ball, S. J. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terror of performativity, Journal of Education Policy,

18(2), 215–228.

Begg, B. (1999) Developing resilient school communities, Learning Matters, 4(1), 17–20.

Best, R. (1989) Pastoral care: some reflections and a re-statement, Pastoral Care in Education, 7

(4), 7–14.

Best, R. & Ribbins, P. (1983) Rethinking the pastoral–academic split, Pastoral Care in Education,

1(1), 11–18.

Blackburn, K. (1975) The tutor (London, Heinemann).

Buckley, J. (1980) The care of learning: some implications for school organisation, in: R. Best,

C. B. Jarvis & P. M. Ribbins (Eds) Perspectives on pastoral care (pp. 182–195) (London,

Heinemann Educational).

Capelli, G. (2009) Thinking caps (Perth, Pilpel Print).

Carnell, E. & Lodge, C. (2002) Support for students’ learning: what the form tutor can do, Pas-

toral Care in Education, 20(4), 12–20.

Chittenden, A. (1999) Teachers as carers: a case study of a secondary school’s pastoral pro-

cesses, Pastoral Care in Education, 15(2), 14–22.

Chittenden, A. (2006) Ethical leadership in the context of structural and organisational change

in pastoral care, Leading and Managing, 10(1), 77–103.

Clark, K. (2008) The pastoral academic divide: impacts and implications for pastoral care. Unpub-

lished M.Ed. thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

Coleman, J. (2011) Introduction: digital technologies in the lives of young people, Oxford Review

of Education, 38(1), 1–8.

Costa, A. (2008) The school as a home for the mind: creating mindful curriculum, instruction and dia-

logue (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press).

Craft, A. (2011) Creativity and education futures: learning in a digital age (Stoke-on-Trent, Tren-

tham Books).

Dewey, J. (1910) How we think (New York, Dover Publications).

Doidge, N. (2007) The brain that changes itself (Scribe, Melbourne).

Doll, B. & Lyon, M. (1998) Risk and resilience. Implications for the delivery of educational and

mental health services in schools, School Psychology Review, 27(3), 348.

Dweck, C. (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success (New York, Ballantine Books).

Fischer, K. (2009) Mind, brain and education: building a scientific groundwork for learning and

teaching, Mind, brain and education, 3(1), 3–16.

Furlong, J. & Davies, C. (2011) Young people, new technologies and learning at home: taking

context seriously, Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 45–62.

Gamble, A. (2009) The spectre at the feast: capitalist issues and politics of recession (New York,

Palgrave MacMillan).

Gewirtz, S. (2002) The managerial school: post-welfarism and social justice in education (London,

Routledge).

Gewirtz, S. & Ball, S. (2000) From ‘welfarism’ to ‘new managerialism’: shifting discourses of

school headship in the educational marketplace, Discourse, 21, 253–268.

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Goswami, U. (2008) Principles of learning, implications for teaching: a cognitive neuroscience

approach, Journal Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4), 381–399.

Greenspan, A. (2007) The age of turbulence: adventures in a new world (Camberwell, Allen Lane).

Hardy, I. & Boyle, C. (2011) My school? Critiquing the abstraction and quantification of educa-

tion, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 211–222.

Hartley, D. (2010) Rhetorics of regulation in education after the global economic crisis, Journal

of Education Policy, 25(6), 785–791.

Hatt, B. (2005) Pedagogical love in the transactional curriculum, Journal of Curriculum Studies,

37(6), 671–688.

Hearn, L., Campbell-Pope, R., House, J. & Cross, D. (2006) Pastoral care in education (Perth,

Western Australia, Child Health Promotion Research Unit, Edith Cowan University).

Howard-Jones, P. (2008) Philosophical challenges for researchers at the interface between neu-

roscience and education, Journal Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4), 361–380.

Keddie, A., Mills, M. & Pendergast, D. (2011) Fabricating an identity in neo-liberal times: per-

forming schooling as ‘number one’, Oxford Review of Education, 37(1), 75–92.

Kenway, J. & Fahey, J. (2010) Is greed still good? Was it ever? Exploring the emoscapes of the

global financial crisis, Journal of Education Policy, 25(6), 717–727.

Lang, P. (1989) What’s so special about pastoral care? Pastoral Care in Education, 7(4),

21–27.

Lee, D. (1993) The place of wisdom in teaching, Learning and Individual Differences, 5(4), 301–

317.

Lemke, T. (2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michael Foucault’s lecture at the College de

France on neo-liberal governmentality, Economy and Society, 30, 190–207.

Levin, B. (2010) Governments and education reform: some lessons from the last 50 years, Jour-

nal of Education Policy, 25(6), 739–747.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D. & Mills, M. (2000) Developments in school-based management: the spe-

cific case of Queensland, Australia, Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 6–30.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M. & Christie, P. (2003) Leading learning (Maidenhead, Open

University Press).

Lodge, C. (2000) Tutors’ and students’ learning or why do schools have tutors? Pastoral Care in

Education, 18(2), 35–41.

Marland, M. (1974) Pastoral care (London, Heinemann).

Marland, M. & Rogers, R. (1997) The art of the tutor, developing your role in the secondary school

(London, David Fulton Publishers).

Martin, A. (2010) Building classroom success: eliminating academic fear and failure (London, Continuum).

Nadge, A. (2005) Academic care: building resilience, building futures, Pastoral Care, 23(1), 28–

33.

Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: a feminist approach to ethics and moral education (Berkeley, Univer-

sity of California Press).

Noddings, N. (1991) Caring and continuity in education, Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 35(1), 3–12.

O’Brien, P. & Dowd, B. (2002) What are teachers saying about new managerialism?, The Jour-

nal of Educational Enquiry, 3(1). Available online at: http://www.literacy.unisa.edu.au/jee/

Issue3.htm (accessed 15 November 2006).

OECD (2004) Emotions & learning seminar, 8–9 November. Available online at: http://www.

oecd.org/dataoecd/41/30/34098220.pdf (accessed 15 November 2011).

Pickering, S. & Howard-Jones, P. (2007) Educators’ view on the role of neuroscience in educa-

tion. Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives, Mind, Brain and Educa-

tion, 1(3), 109–113.

Purdy, N. (2008) Neuroscience and education: how best to filter out the neurononsense from

our classrooms? Irish Educational Studies, 27(3), 197–208.

314 B. V. Addison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rizvi, F. (1993) Contrasting perceptions of devolution, QTU Professional Magazine, 11(1), 1–5.

Sefton-Green, J. (2008) Informal learning; a solution in search of a problem, in: K. Drotner, H.

Jensen & K. Schroder (Eds) Informal learning and digital media (Newcastle, Cambridge

Scholars Press), 238–255.

Starrat, R. J. (1994) Building an ethical school: a practical response to the moral crisis in schools

(Washington, DC, Falmer Press).

Wentzel, K. (1997) Student motivation in the middle school: the role of perceived pedagogical

caring, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.

Yeatman, A. (2000) The politics of postpatrimonial governance, in: T. Seddon & L. Angus

(Eds) Beyond nostalgia: reshaping Australian education (Camberwell, Vic, ACER Press), 170–

185.

Academic care, classroom pedagogy and house group teacher 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:04

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14