CHAPTER

2
Education policy and
policy-making

Purpose of this chapter

After reading this chapter you should understand:

„ that education is one facet of social policy;

„ that there are differing definitions for policy but all share common features;
„ that government can use different instruments and levels of involvement to action policy;
„ the distinction between analysis of and analysis for policy;
„ how context is vital when analysing policy.

Education policy and education studies

Education policy as an academic area of study has found its niche in the last 30 or so years.
An appreciation of the need to analyse the work of government and the ways and means by
which policy and legislation interact to influence the educational agenda is now considered
to be de-rigueur on any education studies course. Analysis of policy is an academic endeav-
our in its own right, as is analysis for policy. Much that passes for undergraduate study is of
the former type: an appreciation of how and why policy both reflects and influences policy.
This chapter sets out to consider the nature of policy and policy-making both as practical and
theoretical matters.

Education and social policy

Before considering education, it is worth spending a brief time discussing social policy. This
has many meanings but simply put, social policy refers to the mechanisms by which govern-
ment (predominately) provides for people in a society. Such provision takes the form of
welfare (the provision of mechanisms by which individuals and groups, such as families, can
24 The context

be provided for) and social protection (for example, through the provision of local
antisocial laws and mechanisms). Because education seeks to better the education of
individuals and groups in society and because it desires to effect social change, it is a
subset of social policy, along with health, housing and social security amongst others.

What is policy?
There is not a self-evident answer to this (Heclo, 1972; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). Often
policy is thought of as a thing: a statement written down (Trowler, 2003) and usually
thought of in relation to government. Dye (1992: 4) provides the most succinct of all
definitions when he says that ‘policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to
do’. Here, policies are believed to be the pronouncements of the government of the
day with regard to aspects of social and public life. Certainly, government action has
a great part to play and in this regard any policy analysis would have to consider the
roles played by governments and political organisations. But other organisations create
policy as well and this should be remembered. For example, it is clear that in the UK
broadly, and England more specifically, public–private partnerships are becoming more
apparent. These are situations where government will work with private organisations
to deliver on policy matters. It may be, for example, that a private consortium will build
a new school and then lease it to the local authority. For this reason, if no other, policy
analysis can go further than government.
This is a product view of policy but is insufficient, however; it is far too limited.
We need to think carefully about what policy might be in relation to action, and this
is a difficult task. We might construe policy as being the actions taken in relation to
some specific standpoint. For example, a current policy proposal is to allow ex-service
men and women without degrees to train to be teachers in two years rather than three
or four. The standpoint taken here is that such individuals have much to offer in the
way of skills and discipline. Whilst actions do play a part in determining policy, they
are not what constitute it in its entirety. Actions stem from policy as well as being crea-
tive of the policy itself; that is, actions demonstrate a particular policy stance whilst at
the same time determining, in part, what the policy will be. In the previous example,
the action to allow ex-troops to train in this way determines what actions to take and the
actions themselves determine the stance about such individuals. This is complicated,
but it is sufficient to note that actions are, therefore, part of the policy cycle and should
be considered in any analysis. There is, then, an inextricable link between action and
policy. Trowler (2003: 96) discusses this dynamic, process view as stemming from three
sources:

„ conflict among those who make policy as well as those who put it into practice;
„ policy statements are open to an array of interpretations;
„ policy ‘on the ground’ is extremely complex.

It must be remembered, though, that not all actions are demonstrative of, or will influ-
ence, policy. Sometimes things happen that sit outside of the policy-making process.
So, for example, if a government wishes to identify required levels of attainment at age
 Education policy and policy-making 25

16 and it is not a part of the policy that entry for vocational examinations increases then the
fact that this increase may occur could be due to something outside of the original process
such as a perception that vocational exams offer a better chance of attaining the levels required
by government.
For this reason we need a definition of policy that recognises the interrelationship between
the two, but which is not beholden to activity. Heclo (1972: 84) does this: for him, the term
policy ‘is usually considered to apply to something “bigger” than particular decisions, but
“smaller” than general social movements’. His work, citing other authors, displays important
issues pertaining to any discussion of what policy is. Policy:

„ consists of related activities and their consequences;

„ is a form of more generalised decision-making;
„ consists of decisions and the interrelations between decisions;
„ has purpose (so implying goals, means, purpose, target and declared intent).

As Jenkins writes, policy ‘is a set of interrelated decisions . . . concerning the selection of goals
and the means of achieving them within a specified situation’ (Jenkins, 1978: 15). In other
words, policy is the ways and means by which intentions are translated into action. Care must
be taken here though: just because policy implies a set of actions this does not imply that
such actions will ultimately occur or, if they do happen, that they will elicit the response they
desired. Clearly, policies exist that have not secured the outcomes planned for and have led to
unintended consequences. A notable example is the way in which certain schools, under New
Labour, entered students for certain GCSEs in order to secure higher grade point averages.
Smith (1976: 13) therefore notes that policy is a ‘deliberate choice of action or inaction, rather
than the effects of interrelating forces’. This is important; Smith signals that policy may consist
of resistance to change; a desire to maintain the status quo. In this sense action is defined by
inactivity: the lack of change as a preferred outcome.
For Rizvi and Lingard (2010: 4) policy expresses

patterns of decisions in the context of other decisions taken by political actors on behalf
of state institutions from positions of authority. Public bodies are thus normative, express-
ing both ends and means designed to steer the actions and behaviour of people. Finally,
policy refers to things that can in principle be achieved, to matters over which authority
can be exercised.

Clearly, then, policy is difficult to pin down. Whilst it may be possible to identify some com-
mon themes in the literature, it is by no means clear. Policy is, however, goal directed. It is
purposive and is undertaken to attempt to meet some end. In this way, we can discern some
features common to most definitions of policy. Policy is about intention (what is desired) and
effect (what occurs). It is certainly action-oriented (with the caveat that action might well be
defined by inactivity) and it is a system of organised decision-making. A series of disconnected
actions would not, therefore, constitute policy. Here there is a need to consider how action
comes to the fore; for how someone decides to proceed must depend upon how they view
that particular situation or issue. It is notable that values must therefore play a part in the defi-
nition and enactment of policy. Even a policy of inactivity will stem from a series of decisions
that will have been, at some point, guided by a particular value or ideological system, although
26 The context

the mechanisms and value sets by which this occurs might well differ from case to case. It is
the web of decisions and decision-making within the policy process that denotes such values.
Historically, politics and policy-making were separate and the latter was seen to be authorised
and specialised; a hierarchical and instrumental process (Moutsios, 2010); it was seen to be:

„ goal oriented;
„ instrumentally rationalist;
„ technical;
„ neutral.

As Moutsios (2010: 124) notes,

In this sense, education policy-making should be considered a hierarchical, expert-driven

and goal-oriented process of decision-making which is based on a taken-for-granted or
implicit political opinion about the purpose, the content and the pedagogic mode of
learning.

Policy instruments
Accepting, then, that policy relates to a determined series of actions influenced by a particu-
lar set of values or an overarching ideology necessitates an examination of how policy is put
into practice. Policy can manifest at a number of levels from the school to the nation state.
For example, all schools will have written documents that attempt to guide action within
the establishment in areas such as teaching and learning, anti-bullying, sex and relationships
education, working with parents and so on. Similarly, at a local level, whilst the work of local
authorities is currently under intense scrutiny and reorganisation, policies for such things as
special educational needs provision and school transport do exist. But whilst we cannot forget
this local context, or indeed the private sphere and its influence on policy (see above), we
are, in this book, concerned, mainly, with policy at a national level and in this regard we can
consider the ways in which government influences social policy matters, including education.
What is evident is that government does not have to carry through all of the policy pro-
cess itself. Simply put, activity can occur somewhere on a continuum of high to low state
involvement. Government can rely on other organisations such as the private or the voluntary
sector to undertake the policy implementation. Low levels of state involvement can be said to
have traditionally been the province of centre right governments such as those headed by the
Conservative Party, although this has by no means always been the case. The current coalition
government through its theory of ‘The Big Society’ (Norman, 2010) currently desires to use
instruments such as community groups and the private and voluntary sector to carry through
its social policy.
Conversely, governments that have deployed a greater control of state intervention have
traditionally been on the left of the political spectrum. Here state instruments such as direct
legislation or control of workers or the direct provision of services and resources has occurred.
Once again, though, this has not always been the case. This is evident in the work of New
Labour between 1997 and 2007. Under the leadership of Tony Blair private enterprise was
often seen as being the most efficient way to ensure policy delivery. But New Labour was
 Education policy and policy-making 27

often contradictory in its approach, favouring on the one hand the direct control of state edu-
cation through target setting and highly prescriptive strategies whilst on the other using the
private sector to monitor results and marshal support.

ACTIVITY 2.1

„ Choose a national education policy. For example, you might choose the National
Literacy Strategy as brought in by New Labour. Policies can be found by reading vari-
ous books and articles on education policy as well as by searching the DfE website.
„ Which government initiated this policy? This might be relatively straightforward as the
date will indicate which government brought it in. However, it is also the case that one
government may have thought of or piloted this, but another government may have
enacted it. The National Literacy Strategy of 1998 is a case in point. This was piloted by
the Conservative government of John Major, but introduced wholesale by Tony Blair’s
New Labour.
„ Identify how the policy has been implemented.
a Who did the training so that the policy might be implemented? It might be that
training was not a part of the policy, or it might be that the policy had a large
training component. An example is the Literacy Strategy mentioned above.
Initially, training was done by regional advisers who cascaded information to
schools. However, LEAs also had a role to play and employed consultants to
‘spread the word’. Teachers in school were also deployed as leading teachers to
work with teachers in other schools.
b Who did the monitoring? In the case of the Literacy Strategy, monitoring was under-
taken by the schools themselves and by the local consultants. However, part of the
strategy was the setting of local and school-based targets for achieving level 4 on
the standard assessment tests (SATs) (this is discussed later in Chapters 4 and 8).
These targets certainly concentrated the minds of teachers and other school staff.
c Who employed those undertaking this work? In the case of the Literacy Strategy,
schools and LEAs, although the Department for Education and Employment/
Department for Education and Skills (DfEE/DfES) employed regional advisers to
monitor the uptake and progress of the policy.
„ Did the government of the day use high or low levels of state involvement or a mixture?
What is interesting about literacy is that it was never statutory to use the strategy.
However, because of the ways in which state apparatus was used, and the mechanisms
attached to the policy were deployed, effectively schools acted as though it were.

It is the case that a variety of instruments and organisations can be used to effect policy, from
taxation to direct action on the part of specific groups. This is important when considering
policy and its effects for if we are to identify the mechanisms by which policy has become
enacted (Ball et al., 2012) there is a need to recognise the role played by others than the gov-
ernment. The ways in which other groups make and shape policy explicitly calls into question
the policies themselves and the discourses that surround them.
28 The context

Levels of policy analysis

Previously, a distinction has been made between analysis of policy and analysis for policy. This
is important, for the two carry different connotations. Analysis of policy implies the reading
and interpretation of various policies and policy instruments. It is the study of content, outputs
and processes. Someone who wanted to perform an analysis of the 2011 Higher Education
Bill (DBIS, 2011) would concern themselves with identifying aspects of what it had to say, to
whom it was speaking, what the intended outputs were and the processes by which the policy
would be realised in practice. There might also be a reading in relation to other social policy
missives such as the White Paper The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010a). Someone undertak-
ing an analysis of the policy may well even try to determine the different interpretations that
could be made and how these might pan out in the world of higher education. This latter
activity might be called policy forecasting.
Analysis for policy is different, however. It may not be divorced from analysis of policy,
but it has a different agenda. Analysis for policy implies consideration of different actions and
values position so that policy might be influenced and made. It consists of activities such as
evaluation or impact studies to determine the efficacy or otherwise of a certain series of deci-
sions. In this way information is provided that is used for policy-making. The emphasis here
is on gleaning enough quality information so that decisions about policy direction might be
made and maintained. Part of such analyses, then, is a consideration of agenda setting as well
as the production of policy texts (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010).
Those studying for education or related degrees will more than likely not engage in analysis
for policy. Analysis of policy is relatively easier to undertake whereas to influence policy, even
at a local level is more costly, time-consuming and difficult. This is not to say that such work
never occurs; rather it acknowledges the ways in which degree courses are organised and run.
Teacher education and training students may well have opportunities to influence policy in
their partner school, but such opportunities are less likely for those engaged in more theoreti-
cal study unless through their research or direct work placement; it is the analysis of policy that
is most likely to exercise such students.

Policy creation
Before policy can be enacted it needs to be created. There are many theories of policy
creation, some more simple than others. Ultimately, though, they rely on some form of
issue to be identified and possible solutions to be proposed and adopted/dismissed. It is
important to remember that inaction or the decision not to take action can be the result of
policy implementation just as much as activity or change. It is not necessary for something
to have occurred for a policy to be enacted; as stated above; the policy can, just as easily,
be to take no action or deliberately stop action from occurring. A good example might
be the work of the Rose Review (DCSF, 2008) into the primary curriculum. Although
New Labour desired to implement the recommendations of the review, the policy of
the incoming coalition government was to halt this. They, instead, instigated their own
review.
In this section we will further consider the stagist approach along with ‘social construction-
ist theory’ as means to conceive of the policy creation cycle.
 Education policy and policy-making 29

Whilst political issues are an important part of policy creation, it is necessary to remember
that there can be contradictions in educational policy-making and that these contradictions
need to be ironed out in some way, shape or form:

„ centralisation versus decentralisation contradiction;

„ enterprise versus traditionalism contradiction;
„ idealistic versus pragmatic contradiction;
„ the widening participation versus increasing the financial burden of education contradiction.

‘Stagist’ approaches to policy creation

Stagist approaches assume that the policy-creation cycle follows a set pattern even if the actions
and outcomes at each level are not always determinable. The simplest way to consider policy
creation here is to think of it as a problem-solving event. An issue is identified, decisions are
taken about what should be done and solutions are offered and enacted. This simple process
is termed a ‘stagist’ approach because the work occurs in stages that can be defined as discrete
events. Jenkins (1978) provides a simple process for the creation and enactment of policy:

„ Initiation. Here decisions are taken which mean that action (or inaction) needs to be
taken. This forms the basis for the policy-making cycle.
„ Information is gathered that enables further reflection and debate. Such information can be
from a variety of sources, but key is the belief that what is gathered is both pertinent to
the policy process and accurate.
„ Consideration is then given to the information. Here, individuals and groups will take
stock of that gathered and check for accuracy and worth and for possible ways forward.
„ Decisions will then be taken as to what course of action (or inaction) is required and how
best to proceed.
„ The actions are then implemented in a variety of ways consistent with the decisions taken
before.
„ It is at this stage that the work undertaken to date will be considered and evaluated. Such
evaluations may be conducted externally to the process or by those implementing the
actions. It is common for any evaluation to be external, however. The results of such
evaluations are often used to re-inform the policy process.
„ Termination. It is not always the case that policies continue. Some have a definite lifespan
and cease after a set period. Sometimes the policy has a built in timeframe, whilst on
other occasions termination occurs following the election of a new government. It may
be that a policy has not worked and is therefore stopped.

Jenkins’ work demonstrates a neat series of steps which, when followed, lead, hopefully, to a
neat outcome: appropriate decisions are taken based on appropriate evidence and appropri-
ate actions are put in place (Table 2.1). Indeed, this stagist approach is similar to the work
of Hogwood and Gunn (1984: 13–19) who described policy as a ‘label for a field of activ-
ity’, ‘an expression of general purpose’, ‘decisions of government’, ‘formal authorisation’, ‘a
programme’ and both ‘output and outcome’. Whilst essentially the same process as that of
Jenkins, their stagist approach is somewhat more elaborate.
30 The context

TABLE 2.1 A stagist approach to policy creation

x Deciding to decide Initiation

x Deciding how to decide
x Issue definition
x Forecasting
x Setting objectives and priorities

x Options analysis Creation

x Implementation, monitoring, control

x Evaluation and review Implementation and development

x Maintenance, succession, termination

Source: after Hogwood and Gunn (1984).

This process can be delineated into three main areas of work: initiation; creation; and imple-
mentation and development, with clear parallels with Jenkins. What is of note here is the way
in which Hogwood and Gunn discuss the decision-making process. It is clear that for them
decision-making is a time-laden process that involves not only deciding to decide, but also
defining issues, forecasting and setting priorities and objectives. This is a much richer inter-
pretation than Jenkins and gives a rounder picture of the ways in which decisions relating to
policy are made. Certainly, in the world of policy creation, possibilities are often forecasted so
that politicians and policy-makers have a better idea of likely outcome.
In a similar vein, Rein (1983) discusses three basic steps for national policy-making:

„ problem or issue setting;

„ mobilising government action;
„ achieving settlement to appease different values.

Technicist-empiricist policy creation and analysis

What these two versions allude to is some form of rational decision-making process whereby
issues are identified, the most appropriate solution chosen and implemented and the out-
comes monitored and evaluated (Bates et al., 2011); in essence, what this approach seeks to
do is produce a definitive position for policy from a set of truths known by those involved
in the policy creation. That is to say, certain individuals decide on the situation in hand and
follow the policy process to its logical conclusion. It follows, therefore, that policy analysis,
in this vein, would seek to also produce something definitive; something that demonstrates
an underlying truth that can be captured by the policy and the policy process. Any analysis,
then, would seek to identify the real meanings behind the policy, its creation and execution;
a search for the truth. This is the position of the traditional policy sciences as they sought to

derive so called ‘objective’, value-free methods for the writing and reading of policy,
[in an] . . . attempt to give technical and scientific sophistication to the policy process in
order to buttress its intellectual legitimacy.
(Olssen et al., 2004: 2)
 Education policy and policy-making 31

This approach sought to ensure that no vested interests could be said to have clouded the
agenda; the decisions arrived at were distanced from the thoughts of the individuals involved.
Termed a technocratic approach, this method assigns various reasons for each of the stages for
the policy-making process and, accordingly, similar reasons for the analysis of policy that ensues.
Also, participants would find themselves designated particular roles within the process, roles that
reflected objectively identified jobs with associated requirements. It is also the case that the type
of information used is more often than not statistical in nature, the assumption being that num-
bers give objectivity. So, for example, the numbers of pupils achieving a certain grade in a test, as
an example of average performance for a certain age, would be identified and such results would
be used to describe whether or not an issue existed. This, in turn, would lead policy-makers to
identify whether or not a new policy was needed, or whether an alteration in existing policy is
necessary. Of course, the decision may be made that no change at all is required.
But it is the dispassionate nature of such decision-making that comes to the fore here. By
using positivist measures, bias can be said to have been removed. It is ‘facts’ that are described
and accepted and that form the basis for the production of policy imperatives. More impor-
tantly, any ensuing policy is assumed to have captured the ‘truth’ of the matter: the problem
has been solved and the communication of this ‘truth’ and the articulation of a range of
possible responses provide the means by which activity might be designed. It is also the case
that activity is often couched in terms of local mediation; that is, local contexts provide the
backdrop against which initiatives and actions are formed and performed.
Such technocratic policy mechanisms identify the need for local action within the frame
of wider policy matters. These then direct responses as legitimate or otherwise, through the
identification of ‘truth’. What results are usable scripts whereby policy-makers and policy
analysts might pass judgement and local individuals might provide possible local mediation of
the policy messages. Thus they demonstrate a true understanding of information, ideas and
intentions (Olssen et al., 2004). The key here is the use of positivist methodological measures:
statistical analysis forms the cornerstone of the process for numbers ‘reveal truth’:

When such mechanisms are presented as the logical conclusion of positivist methodo-
logical endeavours, the status afforded such data through its dispassionate collection and
analysis would imply a set of ‘truths’, adherence to which would provide a means for
understanding and action.
(Adams, 2011a: 59)

Two assumptions give this view value. First, it is assumed that the methods used are objective in
their intent and deployment. That is to say, the situation they describe reflects the ‘reality on the
ground’. Second, it is assumed that these reflections are accurately reflected in the policy in ques-
tion; it is believed that the policy missive is reflective of that which the author intended to say.
However, whilst writing about an essentially stagist approach, Trowler (2003) notes how
policy goes through a two part process: policy encoding, whereby a policy statement is
created from competing interpretations and interests; and policy decoding, the selective inter-
pretation or mediation of policy missive into the local space. Between these two lies the
transmission of policy whereby individuals ‘in the middle’ reclassify and recast the policy so
possibly interfering with the original signal. For him, the issue here is one of interpretation;
there is no ‘objective’ reading of the policy document. This is important and further extends
the debate about ideology and values and their place in the policy-making process. It is for
this reason that we can consider social constructionism.
32 The context

ACTIVITY 2.2

Use the same government policy as for Activity 2.1.

„ Was the policy consulted about prior to implementation? If so, how was this consulta-
tion undertaken? For example, who was consulted?
„ What objectives does the policy have? How does it intend to meet these objectives?
„ Has this policy a stagist approach to policy implementation?

Social constructionist policy analysis

Whilst the above might appeal to those wishing to make policy at a variety of levels it is overly
simplistic. To assume a chain that clearly identifies reality (as described through positivist
methodology) and binds it to action is flawed. It is not that evidence is not gathered or that
decisions are not taken, rather it is the basis upon which these occur that needs to be ques-
tioned. How, for example, do decisions get made; upon what basis are they decided? Simi-
larly, who decides on the evidence to gather and why was this chosen? It is important that we
ask such questions for they reveal a lot about intent and meaning behind the veneer of policy
and policy-making and thus the buttressing of the legitimacy of policy.
With this in mind, social constructionism can be deployed. Social constructionist theorising
is not one field of enquiry; rather it labels a number of similar endeavours whereby researchers
try to uncover and examine the methods and activities that make up society. Social construc-
tionist theorising would seek to ask and answer questions about aims and intent and the wider
structuring of decision-making that makes up the social world. For example, and to return to
the exam grade discussion above, social constructionists would ask questions about the origins
of the grade point used for discussion. So, rather than identify a grade as being the desired
one and acting on it, a social constructivist analysis of the policy would try to determine why
it was that this grade was chosen to represent average performance. Further, it would seek to
ask questions as to why performance on that exam had been chosen as the exemplar for pupil
achievement. Indeed, it might even question why exam performance was to be used as the
basis for judgement in the first place. In so doing, a social constructionist critique would begin
to identify issues wider than just the policy itself. It might, for example, question the decisions
taken at the heart of government to evaluate the worth of education via statistical measures.
At the heart of this approach are the ideas of problematisation and argumentation. The
former occurs when a problem is defined. Rather than seeing a problem as existing prior to
someone identifying it, problematisation starts from the view that all problems are socially
constructed; that is, they all have their basis in the ways and means by which we live our
social lives. For example, the problem that not enough children have reached a certain level
on a certain test is only a problem because it has been defined that this test, measuring these
things, in these ways, is to be the barometer of academic success and that this certain level is
the desired, average age-related score. This, coupled with the statistical fact that ‘not enough
young people are reaching a stated level’ (itself a constructed problem), then creates the ‘prob-
lem’ for the policy to solve. The process of problematisation takes hold and defines what is
to be considered. Clearly, though, problems are not constructed separately from historical,
 Education policy and policy-making 33

cultural and social issues. Problems must thus be seen as socially constructed responses to
historical-social-cultural specificity: our ways of viewing the world are encumbered by our
history our society and our culture. Thus problematisation is so encumbered as well. Policy is
thus ‘context rich’ in a social constructionist vein.
Problematisation goes hand-in-hand with argumentation. Once the problem has been
constructed, a response then has to be manufactured. Whilst this might well be the result of
time spent in consideration and evidence gathering, clearly, following on from the previous
points, the ways in which we are encumbered will play a part in the decisions we take. Thus,
to argue for one course of action is to present as definitive a particular storyline, a particular
way of reading and responding to the world. To return to our testing issue: the response to the
constructed problem might well be to impose a prescriptive programme of lessons that seeks
to ensure that the required proportion of pupils at the required age are taught certain mate-
rial, knowledge of which should glean the required results. But in a democracy this response
has to be won by argument. It might be the plank of a political party’s manifesto which,
once they are elected, can be actioned. In any eventuality, argumentation defines policy as
a process whereby shared or accepted understandings are promoted. What is signalled to be
‘fact’ becomes so following a particular line of argument that seeks to promote one course of
thinking over another.

Policy as discourse
Within the social constructionist line policy is often described as discourse. Discourses are

about what can be said, and thought, but also about who can speak, when, where and
with what authority. Discourses embody the meaning and use of propositions and words.
Thus certain possibilities for thought are constructed.
(Ball, 2006, p. 48)

Policy as discourse is by no means an agreed field; there are a number of differing interpreta-
tions of what might be meant (cf. Bacchi, 2000). But it is possible to discern a number of
similar features. What policy as discourse does is to note the sort of discussions outlined above;
the interplay between policy creation and response.
Writing in this vein, Kenneth Gergen (1995), a well-known social constructionist writer,
highlights the ways in which language is the key to meaning-making. His work helps us to
think about the ways in which the language used to determine policy actually constructs the
very policies it seeks to describe. So, in creating a policy about literacy, the policy itself defines
what literacy is. This is very powerful for it moves our thinking away from ideas that policy
results from a series of dispassionate and unbiased observations and decisions towards a posi-
tion that actively acknowledges that policy has a performative function, that is, policy is a per-
formance of a series of conversations rather than a static entity. It signals that policy is neither
a true representation of reality nor an accurate reflection of intent. This means that policy is
not simply understood and applied in context, it is actively performed. But the performance
does not start with the putting into practice of the policy; it starts with problematisation. This
means that when we think of policy we must think of the production of the ‘text’, the ways
in which policy is consumed and the delineation of social practices, such as ‘professional’,
‘teacher’ and so on.
34 The context

In the problematisation and argumentation process outlined above, the role for history,
culture, society, etc. was highlighted. Policy as discourse acknowledges this; it identifies how
prevailing social, cultural and political ways of viewing the world impact on the policy pro-
cess. For example, viewing educational success by the realisation of certain levels in a national
test says as much about prevailing societal and political values as it does educational ones. The
ways in which certain behaviours are seen to be successful reflects how we view the world.
The fact that we judge educational success in terms of grades on a test reflects society’s views
about the relationship between tests, education and success. Particularly, discourses are ‘. . .
practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’ (Foucault, 1977: 49). Dis-
courses do not just represent reality, they help to create it and in so doing they deny us the
language we need to be able to think about it and describe alternatives (Trowler, 2003). In a
sense they trap us in their own creation.
For example, politically, great stall has been set by children and young people acquiring
certain credentials through the schooling system. But this, as we shall see in later chapters,
reflects socio-political ways of viewing the world, ways that are wrapped up with certain
views for education, wider services and the ways and means by which such success should be
gleaned. The techno-empiricist line would not question such assumptions; rather it takes for
granted that such measures and ways of being and acting are unproblematic for they simply
reflect what is true. In this case, the discourse of standards seeks to deny us a language to
challenge the assumptions inherent within the discourse itself. Importantly, the social con-
structionist line, taking policy as discourse as its basis, requires us to challenge this. It makes
us think about the ways in which we have been positioned to think of education in certain
ways. It notes the mechanisms by which policy performs certain functions. As Adams (2011a:
60) states, policy, then, ‘should not be seen as an accurate portrayal of some pre-existing status
but is, rather, a social construction given legitimacy through the permission it gives to speak’.
Such a position not only challenges us to think about how policy is made, but also how we
read policy and how professionals interact with texts, discourses and role definitions. What is
clear is that we cannot simply assume that ‘truth’ has been captured for there is no truth inde-
pendent of the meanings attached to certain things. Thus, when examining professional deci-
sion-making there is a need to understand that action is embedded in certain ways of seeing the
world, ways of seeing that stem from culture, politics, economics, social standing, etc. Policy as
discourse requires us to examine the uses and effects of policy in relation to these influences, the
ways in which this is deployed professionally and the social conditions which have created the
language used in the policy itself. In short, it requires us to think of policy as social construction.
This brings us back to the process of problematisation. The different ways in which we can
view the world not only give us mechanisms by which we might understand ‘reality’, they
also determine the very ‘problems’ policy seeks to address. In this way, certain situations are
deemed noteworthy and in need of action. But situations do not exist separately from those
thinking of them. We cannot say, for example, that 70 per cent of 11-year-olds getting level
4 on a SAT test is, objectively speaking, insufficient, any more than we can say that raspberry
jam is better than other conserves. It is a matter of opinion and position. What we can say,
however, is that given the ways we have of viewing education currently, 70 per cent is too
low and something needs to be done. But this is a political and social statement; it makes
reference to beliefs and ideas about what is a ‘good education’, indeed, what an ‘education’
is. We must consider wider discourses if we are to understand policy. And it is the process
of argumentation which constructs ‘solutions’ as ‘acceptable’. When educationalists or politi-
cians talk of solutions to problems, they are talking about acceptability: this way of acting fits
 Education policy and policy-making 35

with my beliefs regarding the ‘problem’ and thus is the ‘right’ one. Again, there is a need to
understand the wider discourses and ideologies that go together to make up such responses,
we need to understand the arguments put forward to help ‘solve’ the constructed problems.
Policy as discourse, then, establishes three key principles. First, it signals that ‘problems’ do
not pre-exist human thought, but rather that they are determined by specific ways of seeing
the world. Second, these lenses are also the means by which ‘solutions’ captured as policy
pronouncements, might be constructed. Thirdly, policy as discourse constrains the scope of
policy: the discourses available to use present a viable set of alternatives.

ACTIVITY 2.3

Use the same policy as for Activities 2.1 and 2.2.

„ What discourses does the policy deploy? For example, it might make certain state-
ments about teaching and learning or professionalism.
„ What ‘problems’ does the policy identify (problematisation)?
„ What solutions does it offer (argumentation)?

Policy as text
For Ball (2006) policy can be thought of as discourse and text; for him, policies have a two-
fold existence. In his theory, Ball notes how policies are statements born of struggle and
compromise between the different individuals, groups and interests involved in the process of
policy-making. The theory also notes how at the point of decoding policy, varying interpreta-
tions will be placed on the text. Here, teachers and officials in school will interpret within the
context of their own geography and culture. Thus we have some form of disruption to the
intention: that intended by the policy may well not get enacted or may well get enacted in a
novel manner. However, degrees of difference are not seen in all situations. Ball talks about
some texts being more ‘readerly’, that is, interpretation can be more readily put on them, and
more ‘writerly’, that is the scope for individual interpretation is reduced. Trowler (2003: 131)
notes that this view ‘stresses the importance of social agency, of struggle and compromise, and
the importance of understanding how policy is “read” ’.
Policy as discourse and policy as text together note the way in which policy is much more
than a specific document; they note how policy is both a product and process wherein texts are
produced, modifications are made, and the issues therein are implemented into practice (Rizvi
and Lingard, 2010). It is important to note that policy texts can take the form of speeches, press
releases and blogs; discursive mechanisms by which policy pronouncements are displayed.

Policy and values

What should be clear in the above discussions is the role that values play in determining
policy. The positions governments adopt when defining policy texts are themselves state-
ments of worth; government decides on that which it feels is appropriate and defines policy
36 The context

accordingly. Policy is an attempt to direct action and attitudes and as such appeals to individu-
als or not; policy attempts to have effect in the broader social, cultural and political domains
(Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). At one level policy attributes or withholds funding, based on deci-
sions taken regarding the worth of an activity or direction of travel.
Notably, though, policies differ in their clarity, complexity and commitment (Rein, 1983).
Thus, the likelihood of implementation differs between policies and between times. Some
policies are symbolic and have little or no funding attached (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). Such
policies may not be intended for implementation, or in fact they may set the discourse fur-
thering the ends of other policies and directives. It can also be the case that policies are
implemented from other previous policies and are thus incremental in their origins and imple-
mentation. Here it may be the case that the development of particular policy lines follows
the election patterns of political parties; one government might implement a particular policy
only to have this developed or discarded by the next government who wishes to stress how
different they are from the previous administration (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). Finally, rational
policies are those which are pointedly prescriptive: they go through a number of distinct
phases of development and implementation (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010).

Conclusion
Education policy is, then, not simply a matter of decision, transmission and act. The process
of making policy is far more involved. Whilst it might seem convenient to think of policy
creation as a simple technical-empiricist matter, it is clear that when values and ideologies are
factored in, the process becomes rather more complicated. Wider social, political, cultural and
historical issues become part of the very fabric of policy creation and are seen to be embedded
within the processes there involved. Policy as a social construction acknowledges the inher-
ently political nature of human existence and how this influences the policy-making process.
This is important, for the rest of this book takes as its starting point the idea that policy is not
something simply created on high and mediated into the local space. Rather it assumes that
complicated forces intertwine to create a rich tapestry of possibilities that are resisted, taken
up, moderated and implemented according to social taste. When reading the remainder of the
book it is important, then, to remember that the interpretations given here are exactly that;
they are no more ‘truthful’ than any others you might which to conceive of. Evidence will be
provided for the various standpoints presented, but at this level there is a need for discourse to
be examined fully so that policy might continue to be further examined and debated. When
reading the remainder of the book it is important to identify differing discourses for the way
in which they impact on prevailing policy. The reader’s own interpretations, if evidenced, are
just as important as the ones presented here.

Key points

„ Defining policy is not an easy task. We can, however, note that action is part and parcel
of the policy-making process. Action can be defined by a decision to act or not to act.
„ Government can use a variety of instruments to influence and implement policy. Policy
can be actioned by state apparatus or be more devolved from it, for example, to the private
sector.
 Education policy and policy-making 37

„ Analysis for policy concerns itself with identifying how and why policy might be created
and implemented. Analysis of policy is an analytical endeavour undertaken to understand
how and why policy might have been so created and deployed.
„ Stagist approaches to policy creation assume that the policy creation/implementation
cycle is linear in orientation and can be said to follow a distinct pattern.
„ Technicist-empiricist orientations follow from this and assume that the creation and
implementation of policy can be easily identified. In this view, the decisions taken by
policy creators stem from objective evidence free from any type of bias and the imple-
menters of policy action in an unproblematic straightforward manner.
„ Social constructionist theory questions the value-free nature of educational decision-
making. Its view is that the policy-making process is imbued with social, cultural, histori-
cal and political meaning. It would seek to question, therefore, the decisions taken as to
the basis for action.
„ Policy as discourse and policy as text are forms of social constructionist theory which see
education policy as stemming from the performative function of language. Discourses
construct and are constructed by the very language used to try to problematise a situ-
ation. Similarly, the processes of argumentation construct solutions as ‘acceptable’ and
in so doing are constructed by and construct the discourses marshalled in their support.

Further reading
Ball, S.J. (2006) Education Policy and Social Class, London: Routledge (Chapter 3). This chapter gives the
reader a good insight into what Ball describes as policy as discourse and policy as text.
Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing Education Policy, London: Routledge (Chapter 1). This
chapter offers the reader theoretical insights into defining policy.
Trowler, P. (2003) Education Policy, London: Routledge (Chapters 3 and 4). Both of these chapters offer
some illuminating insights into the policy-making and policy implementation process.