Download
1 / 15
200 likes | 347 Vues
Doctor of Education. Module 1 Education Policy and Social Justice: An Overview Conceptualising Policy. What is policy? Traditional conceptualisations: policy is conceptualized as a government intention, a planned programme, or a desired set of goals – i.e. predominantly as a product
E N D
Doctor of Education Module 1 Education Policy and Social Justice: An Overview Conceptualising Policy
What is policy? Traditional conceptualisations: • policy is conceptualized as a government intention, a planned programme, or a desired set of goals – i.e. predominantly as a product • Assumption that there is general agreement about the policy • Uses a 'rational' model of policy development as a linear process through distinct/discreet stages • Policy gets done to people
Policy as process approaches: • Policy processes are dynamic and ongoing – and policy is far more than a product/text • includes recognition of the politics involved in defining something as a problem, processes of implementation, adaptation, etc • Assumes that competing interests are involved - policy making conceptualized as struggle • the policy process is disjointed, less rational and more political. It is seen as interactive, complex, multi-layered. • Implementation is often conflictual, involving negotiation, compromises, trade-offs
Policy cycle (Bowe et al. 1992) : 3 inter-related contexts: • the context of policy text production • the context of practice • the context of influence Ball (1994) added 2 more: • the context of outcomes • the context of political strategy
'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’ (Ball 1994, p. 10)
Ball (1994) makes a distinction between policy as text and policy as discourse. • Policy as text allows the reader to interpret the text in different ways - so allowing for agency of policy actors in the policy process • Policy as discourse (Foucault) highlights the power relations in framing the interpretations of policy texts.
‘Discourse is a central concept in Foucault’s analytical framework. Discourses are about what can be said and thought, but also about who can speak, when, and with what authority. Discourses embody meaning and social relationships, they constitute both subjectivity and power relations’ (Ball 1990, p. 2)
'Discourse theory can be used to explore particular policies in their historical context, tracing how policy 'problems' are constructed and defined and how particular issues get to be on the policy agenda' (Taylor 1997, p. 28)
‘We want every adult to address their own skills that they need for employability, but also to be responsible for taking action to address their own skill needs. So, acquiring skills is not something that somebody does for you, it is something that you acquire for yourself with help and support in the way that you need it.’ (Clarke 2004)
Theoretical approaches to policy analysis: • Positivist • Interpretative • Critical
Critical policy analysis: questions to ask • Why was this policy adopted? • Why now? • What is the wider social, economic, political context in which it is located? • What assumptions underlie this policy? • In whose interests is the policy being enacted? • What are its effects – and on/for whom? • What do feminist and anti-racist critical approaches tell us about this policy? • Why now?
Ozga (2000) uses a framework discourse analysis of policy texts: • Firstly, conducting a general analysis of the content and context of the text, and • Secondly, a ‘close’ analysis of the text in relation to style and tone.
General analysis of content and context • What subjects are located/constructed in this text? • What is not being said or being silenced in this text? • Can we identify over-arching discourses that this text feeds into/contests? • What systems of discursive power can we identify?
Close analysis of style and tone • Is there an identifiable authorial ‘voice’ in this text? • Does the text convey – or purport to convey – multiple viewpoints? • What ‘style’ of language is this text written in? • How is power infused in this style? • In what ways could this style act to legitimate the discourses identified in the text?
Ball, S. J. (1990) Foucault and Education, London, Routledge. Ball, S. J. (1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach, Buckingham, OUP. Bowe, R. Ball, S. J. with Gold, A. (1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociology. London, Routledge. Clark, C. (2004). Speech to LSDA Summer Conference, 15 June. London, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=127 Accessed 1 August 2005 Gillborn, D. (2005). "Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform." Journal of Education Policy 20(4): 485-505. Ozga, J. (2000) Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain, Buckingham, OUP. Shaw, K. M. (2004). "Using Feminist Critical Policy Analysis in the Realm of Higher Education: The Case of Welfare Reform as Gendered Educational Policy." The Journal of Higher Education 75(1): 56-79. Taylor, S. (1997). Critical Policy Analysis: exploring contexts, texts and consequencies. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 18(1): 23-35.
