Education Policy Unravelled

Dean Garratt, Gillian Forrester

• Éditeur: Continuum
• Année: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781441148810
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Éducation
• Sous-sujet: Éducation physique

Education Policy Unravelled examines the nature of contemporary education policy, its purposes and political formation. It charts the continuity of policy development along neo-liberal lines, taking an historical perspective and moving from New Labour to the emerging position of the Coalition government. Contrary to popular belief about recent radical change in education policy, the author team draws attention to the fact that there have been strong similarities and nuanced disagreements between successive modern governments. Written in an accessible style, the book contains a number of activities and pedagogical features designed to appeal to students, to inform thinking and understanding around key policy issues. This is an invaluable guide for engaging with education policy as it uses a variety of key elements of policy theory in order to support students through some of the complexities involved in contemporary policy analysis and critique.

1

Introduction: The Development of Education Policy in the Modern Era

Chapter Outline

The nature of education policy

The policy process

Ideology and discourse

Policy developments in the modern era: An historical overview

Purpose and structure of the book

The nature of education policy

This book explores the nature of education policy, attempting to ‘unravel’ its meaning in the broadest and narrowest senses. The purpose of the book is to disaggregate education policy so that significant features and characteristics of policy-making and a number of related issues can be dismantled, separated out and examined indepth in order to illuminate particular and important enduring themes and trends as well as to encourage the reader to engage in deeper exploration. It is never possible to examine education policy purely on its own as a single, discrete entity. Education policy-making does not ‘happen’ in a vacuum or bubble, but is subject to a range of competing influences, which can be broadly categorized under the umbrella of social, political, economic, technological, religious or cultural factors. The book therefore examines education policy in the context of a range of constituting factors that have all influenced and continue to impact upon education in a variety of ways. Education policy is constantly changing and, over time, different factors have had different levels of prominence; so education systems, organizations, educational activities, learners and those working in education have been shaped in a variety of ways at different points in time. Adding to this complexity is an assortment of different individuals, groups, events, movements, ideologies and perspectives that may in some way contribute to and shape policy ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’ at different historical moments. Our overriding aim in writing this book therefore rests upon conceptually ‘undoing’ and critically analysing the threads that together constitute the intricately woven tapestry of education and policy-making. Using concrete examples and pertinent illustrations from a variety of sources, we aim to facilitate readers’ understanding of key policy issues, facilitate an appreciation of the ‘contested terrain’ (Ozga, 2000) of education policy research and bring life to the field of education policy.

The term ‘policy’ could be regarded as ‘obvious’ and fairly comprehensible in its own right. However, policy is an often quite loosely used term and therefore can be defined and understood in different ways. In its narrowest form policy can be considered as a statement of intent; something which is written down in a policy document, for example, and an expression of policy-makers’ plans, objectives or policy descriptions of practice. In this sense, policy can be regarded as being static and fixed. Trowler (2003: 95), referring specifically to education, offers the following lucid explanation of policy as:

a specification of principles and actions, related to educational issues, which are followed or which should be followed and which are designed to bring about desired goals.

In his conceptualization of policy Ball (1993) makes a clear distinction between policy as ‘text’ and policy as ‘discourse’. Regarding policy as text Ball (ibid.) suggests this is concrete and exists as a written representation of policy; it is ‘read’. However, Ball recognizes that while policies are officially put forward in policy documentation, it is important to comprehend that policies are unlikely to stay fixed since they are typically re-worked through speeches, media interviews, ‘spin’, reports, the agendas of particular individuals and so on. It is highly unlikely that policy unfolds straightforwardly from formulation to implementation and operates at the ground exactly as policy-makers originally intended. Ball (ibid.) thus acknowledges the contested, changing and negotiated character of policy, which is usually an outcome of struggles and compromises between different individuals, groups and interests involved in policy-making. A broader, more encompassing view, therefore, is not just to think of policy as a product or an outcome (such as a policy document), but rather as a process that is ongoing, interactional and unstable (Ozga, 2000). So, in this sense policy can be considered dynamic. Accordingly, Considine (1994: 3) provides the following definition of policy:

In a sense everything in the policy world is really just process, the movement of people and programs around common problems such as education, transport and employment. None of these initiatives in these fields stays fixed for very long because the problems themselves keep moving and changing.

We will explore the view of policy as a process further, but first we give consideration to a common-sense concept of public policy as something constructed within the ‘machinery’ of the government, which we can regard as ‘big-P’ policy. Big-P policy comprises two key features; formal policy and informal policy. In its ‘formal’ sense big-P policy is sanctioned by the government and is usually legislated. In its ‘informal’ sense big-P policy may constitute government-approved policy initiatives that are not legislated and may reflect certain pressures from the ground level or from public expectations. One recent example of formal big-P policy is the decision in 2010 by the UK Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government to change the mechanism of funding of higher education and, essentially, transfer the cost of undergraduate tuition fees from the state to the student. This has resulted in universities being able to charge undergraduate fees of over £6,000 and up to £9,000 per year from 2012 (Sedghi and Shepherd, 2011).

Staying with the notion of big-P policy and discerning policy as a process we draw on Trowler (2003) who suggests the dynamism of policy is due to a number of sources. First, there is usually conflict of some sort between policy-makers’ intentions and those who implement policy; so there will typically be differences between the rhetoric of policy and the reality of the enactment of policy on the ground. Secondly, it is important to appreciate that policy can be subject to many different interpretations, which are influenced by different standpoints and interests. In this sense, the interpretation of policy can be considered as an active process. Thirdly, the implementation of policy in practice often means the outcomes differ from policy-makers’ intentions. Policy intentions, as described, are as a rule usually numerous and often of a contradictory nature. Ball (1994: 10 cited in Trowler 2003: 96) succinctly captures this form of dynamism:

Policy is both text and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted as well as what is intended. Policies are always incomplete insofar as they relate to or map on to the ‘wild profusion’ of local practice.

The example provided earlier regarding higher education demonstrates the convolution of a policy decision and its impact at ground level. Due to the devolved nature of the government in the United Kingdom what has subsequently transpired in higher education is a situation where from 2012 students who live in England will be required to pay up to the full £9,000 tuition costs in whatever UK university they attend. In contrast, students who live in Scotland can study at Scottish universities for free although if they choose to study in England they will be required to pay up to £9,000 tuition fees. Welsh students, however, will be subsidized by the Welsh Government and only required to pay tuition fees of approximately £4,000 wherever they study in the United Kingom. Students living in Northern Ireland will be required to pay approximately £4,000 if they study in Northern Ireland, but up to £9,000 elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This particular big-P policy demonstrates how the decision of a government to change funding, brought about largely as a result of a set of economic factors, will have multiple repercussions. Leaving aside the impact upon higher education institutions, the consequences for the individual student is tremendous. For some students this policy will translate to greater levels of debt. Others may consider that higher education will not be feasible and are thus deprived of higher education as a vehicle for improving one’s chances and opportunities. Some may seek to study elsewhere in Europe, in countries/institutions where there are no fees, and thus become ‘tuition tourists’. For example, Bawden (2011) claims that ‘QR’ the international career and education network has, for the first time, produced a world-ranking list of 600 universities that also compares tuition costs and further suggests that many of the top 200 global institutions have tuition fees of less than £9,000, the maximum threshold in England. Dutch institutions are presented in a favourable light as are three universities in Hong Kong, all of which offer a good range of undergraduate programmes taught in English, and at a fraction of the cost of those offered in England. There are, of course, many other attractively priced alternatives across Europe in Scandinavia, Switzerland and France, which offer competitively priced programmes for students who, in each case, are able to speak the native language. As Bawden (ibid.) explains in the case of EU institutions:

According to the Student Loans Company, UK undergraduates wishing to study at EU universities would be eligible for a loan from that country to cover their tuition fees. If the countries also offered loans to cover living expenses, they would be able to apply for those.

Such alternatives outside the United Kingdom serve to underscore just how expensive higher education has become at home in the United Kingdom, and in England more especially. Government policies thus can have major implications for individuals, institutions and nations.

At another level, we acknowledge there are policies that are formed and enacted within localities and institutions; these could be thought of as ‘little-P’ policies. Little-P policies might be, for example, in a secondary school or college of further education where there is a policy on homework that has been specifically designed within and for that particular institution. This book is primarily concerned with big-P policy, however, and it is to this policy process that we now turn.

The policy process

The practice of policy-making at the national level is complicated and complex. Policy-making is not necessarily a linear or logical process, but often the reconciliation of competing ideas and interests, compromises and trade offs. Initial ideas can emerge from pieces of commissioned or non-commissioned research, different government departments, the civil service, political ‘think tanks’ and/or pressure groups keen to exert themselves in order to effect change. As Apple (1990) suggests in relation to the nature of competing ideologies, political tensions in policy-making are inevitable as groups with different vested interests compete for power in the struggle to make their voice heard. The formalization and formation of policy is often a convoluted process, where initially around 15 to 20 ideas are given parliamentary time in each session. From here such ideas are considered and debated, and a small number will later be selected by the Cabinet of the presiding government to become Green Papers containing big questions about policy direction and what is to be achieved.

Essentially, Green Papers are an exploratory consultative exercise, presenting a preliminary report of government proposals to stimulate public discussion and further debate around particular salient issues and themes. Often they will contain questions that the government would like the public to consider and answer, and this is where resistance is most likely to arise as different stakeholders begin to query and question aspects of the proposal under consideration. In practice, Green Papers are often commissioned by the relevant government department under circumstances in which its administration feels there is an area where new legislation is needed, or indeed where existing legislation requires some modification or amendment. Significantly, however, Green Papers make no formal commitment to action, but rather provide an opportunity for open debate and represent perhaps the first stage in the process to changing a law. Some proposals, particularly controversial ones, can take a great deal of time at this stage, before entering the report stage where Members of Parliament (MPs) are later able to introduce their thoughts and feelings (of which, more below).

Subsequently, the feedback provided from wider public consultation and research carried out by government departments in relation to the Green Paper is used to inform the production of a White Paper. White Papers are issued by the government as a statement of policy, setting out more detailed proposals for legislative change or the introduction of a new law(s). Again, there are usually opportunities for the public to comment on White Papers although such papers represent a much bolder statement of intent or precursor to a Bill, which is a draft law. In some cases, a single White Paper will transform into a Bill; in others, there may be several White Papers combined in one Bill or, alternatively, several Bills emerging from a single White Paper.

Bills are debated by MPs and members of the House of Lords and cannot usually be influenced, at this stage, by the public. Sometimes it is possible, however, to lobby individual Lords or encourage an MP to table an amendment to a Bill, or possibly influence how they might vote. The formalization of policy occurs through a series of readings after the Bill is first introduced to the House of Commons; this is the first reading. The second reading is an open debate of the Bill by Members of the House, which can sometimes be followed by a vote, although Bills introduced by the government tend to be accepted by their own MPs. The Committee Stage follows in which a cross-party committee has the role of debating, amending and agreeing to each clause of the proposed Bill before it is put to a vote in both Houses of Parliament (Commons and Lords), where its content is formally agreed and passed. A Bill does not officially become an Act (i.e. law) until it has been granted Royal Assent, which requires the Queen to agree with the Act and is usually a formality.

Ideology and discourse

The purposes of education are contested; different assumptions can be made about what education should be doing, who should be doing what and how it should be done. We deal with the aims of education elsewhere (see Chapters 2 and 6).The point we intend to make here is that education cannot be regarded as a neutral concept; it is paramount, when exploring education, to examine the relationship between policy and ideology. Ideology is a widely used term with several meanings, each of which has different implications for the process of policy formation. Historically, the term was first coined by a group of French intellectuals called ‘ideologues’, operating at the heart of the French Enlightenment. For them, ideology was simply an expression for the ‘science of ideas’, the basis for establishing authentic knowledge and truth about the social world. In the aftermath of the French revolution and following Napoleon Bonaparte’s defeat at the hands of the Russian army in 1812, ideology was denounced for its ‘false ideas’ and so took on a more pejorative (negative) meaning. Later on, this was adopted by Marx and Engels in German Ideology to describe the distorted social and economic relationship between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the proletariat (working class), where ideology had the effect of creating an ‘illusion’ or type of ‘false consciousness’, both of which pointed to a political environment producing distortions through doctrinaire thinking. As Apple (1990) suggests, ideology ‘works’ precisely because its persuasive rhetoric serves to disguise the vague quality of its underlying assumptions. Such disguised assumptions render ideology legitimate since there are always aspects of the concept that remain partly hidden, with the effect that if it appears ‘real’ it becomes so through its consequences.

Different doctrines or ‘belief systems’ about what counts as knowledge are shaped politically by dominant ideas, structures and historical patterns that in turn shape social and economic behaviour. Such ideological patterns do not represent ‘objective’ reality ‘out-there’, but rather reflect the views influenced by social and historical structures. The notion that ideology produces a scenario in which a minority dominate while the vast majority are dominated is based on a conflict theory of capital and production. This takes us well beyond the argument of simple abstract theoretical distortions to directly acknowledge the effect of ideology emerging from actual capitalist practices (Freeden, 2003). In this context, it is the ‘propertied’ class, the class of industrial capitalists (bourgeoisie/middle class) who control the means of production, distribution and exchange and the ‘property-less’ or large proletariat who sell their labour for a wage, but unwittingly accept exploitation in the capitalist process. For Marx, the solution to the problem of ideology was revolution, where the proletariat would eventually identify the hidden motives of the capitalists, rise against them and thus change the social order.

In contrast with ideology’s pejorative meaning it has also bequeathed a more positive one in the history of ideas. As Freeden (2003: 12–13) explains:

while Marx condemned the social conditions under capitalism as the source of ideology illusion, Mannheim realized that it was a feature of any social environment to influence the thought processes of human beings and, moreover that knowledge was a ‘co-operative process of group life’.

In this respect, ideology is not a ‘falsehood’ to be demystified but a manifestation of thinking or system of beliefs. Ideology thus represents a set of ideas and concepts about the social world in addition to the influence of important social and historical structures. This has resonance with the work of French social theorist Michel Foucault (1980: 118) who argued vigorously against the concept of ideology conceived as ‘false consciousness’: ‘the notion of ideology appears to me to be difficult to make use of . . . like it or not, it always stands in virtual opposition to something else which is supposed to count as truth’. Indeed for Foucault, like Mannheim, there is no escaping the influence of different systems of ideas that can be only properly understood through historical analysis. In Foucault’s (ibid.: 131) idiom, ideology is ‘truth’ not a ‘falsehood’ or mere pernicious myth. It is:

a thing of the world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth – that is, the types of discourse it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances that enable one to distinguish true and false statements; the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.

Education policy is therefore influenced by different ideologies (political and educational), values, attitudes and beliefs. The 1945–79 era was fuelled by a social democratic/one-nation, conservative perspective whereby there was largely a political consensus about the purpose of education in reducing social inequalities, improving social mobility and creating a more meritocratic society. State intervention was deemed necessary to support educational provision and facilitate equality of opportunity. There was, however, a change in emphasis in the 1980s and 1990s and a shift away from the social democratic consensus towards the market as the main source of resource distribution. Many initiatives were introduced to establish the conditions for a competitive market as part of the wider New Right agenda of change across the public sector. The political New Right represents a coalition of neo-liberal and neo-conservative thinking. The former promotes the virtue of a free-market economy as a more effective mechanism for the distribution of social resources, competition, privatization and individual liberty, while the latter privileges tradition, hierarchy, authority and social order. Neo-conservatism is committed to the regeneration of traditional ...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Half-Title
• 1 Introduction: The Development of Education Policy   in the Modern Era
• 2 Education: Improvement or Control?
• 3 Policy and Social Justice
• 4 The Evolving Primary Curriculum
• 5 Post-compulsory Education
• 6 Economics of Education
• 7 Globalization and Policy-borrowing
• 8 Possibilities for Education Policy
• References
• Index