When Michel Foucault spoke of ‘regimes of truth’ (1980, p. 133), he was not dismissing the existence of truth itself, but drawing attention to the ways societies determine what counts as true, who is authorised to speak it and how it circulates. In other words, truth is not neutral; it is socially produced and maintained through networks of power and discourse.

This idea resonates powerfully with the Department for Education’s (DfE) Early Career Framework (ECF), a policy initiative designed to support new teachers through structured, evidence-based professional development. The ECF claims to be founded on ‘the best available evidence’ (DfE, 2019, p. 4), drawing heavily from the science of learning and the ‘what works’ agenda. Yet, as Foucault might suggest, this very claim constructs a particular regime of truth within teacher education.

Truth, power and evidence

Within this regime, certain forms of knowledge – especially those emerging from cognitive science and experimental research – are positioned as authoritative. These shape the language, assumptions and practices of the framework. Phrases such as ‘evidence-based’, ‘best practice’ and ‘effective teaching’ carry an aura of objectivity and universality. They appear neutral, yet they encode specific epistemological assumptions about what teaching is, how learning happens and what counts as professional expertise.

By elevating the scientific over the experiential, the ECF marginalises alternative forms of knowledge – such as teachers’ situated relational, and context-dependent understanding of pedagogy. In Foucauldian terms, these are not rejected outright but are rendered less visible or less credible within the dominant discourse. The result is a professional culture in which teachers are encouraged to implement research findings rather than to interrogate or reinterpret them.

Discourse and agency

From this perspective, the ECF does more than deliver professional learning: it shapes how teachers are invited to think about themselves as professionals. They become subjects within a discourse that prizes compliance with ‘what works’ rather than critical reflexivity. This does not mean teachers are powerless – indeed, many navigate these discursive boundaries creatively – but their agency is exercised within a tightly defined epistemic terrain.

As Norman Fairclough’s (2018) critical discourse analysis reminds us, policy texts are not neutral containers of information; they are social practices that construct reality. The ECF’s discourse, therefore, both reflects and reinforces a broader neoliberal logic in education – one that values efficiency, standardisation and measurable impact over professional judgement and autonomy.

Reclaiming professional truths

Recognising the ECF as a ‘regime of truth’ does not mean rejecting evidence-based practice altogether. Rather, it invites a more pluralistic understanding of evidence and professionalism, where teachers’ lived experience, moral purpose and contextual insight are valued alongside research findings.

Foucault’s challenge still stands: to ask who decides what counts as true, whose voices are legitimised and what possibilities for thought and action are opened – or foreclosed – in the process.

References

• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Edited by C. Gordon. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
• Department for Education (DfE). (2019). Early Career Framework. London: DfE.
• Fairclough, N. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis as Dialectical Reasoning. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 13–25). Routledge.

Photo credit: Duncan Cumming via Flickr (used under a Creative Commons Licence)