Education Governmental Policies - Essay Example

? EDUCATIONAL POLICIES BY For a number of politicians and policy makers, educational institutions are the biggest problem and the best solution. They are the best solution due to their ability to secure social transformation. Schools are positioned at the center of the community, family and wider society (Brown, Maguire & Ball, 2010). They are the center of social transformation and offer policy makers with a potentially strong platform to rectify issues of discrimination, diversity and disadvantage observed in classrooms and schools (Townsend, 2007). Every successive government views education as a field for change as public opinion and support for educational development is always guaranteed. Therefore, every government promises to lift standards, enhance achievement and schools. While methods and initiatives differ with every political party, the issue of improving schools has been a regular policy objective in many countries (Townsend, 2007). All around the world, governments are trying out to new policies to deal with innovative technologies, new world order and a dynamic global economy. All through the post-war period, there have been numerous efforts to improve the UK education system, frequently with a clear objective to try and make it more effective (Machin & Vignoles, 2006). It is believed that education plays a significant role in facilitating economic growth, equality of opportunity and social justice (Townsend, 2007). Over the last two decades, there has been an unparalleled growth in public interest in education, which has given rise to a number of policies such as SureStart, Every Child Matters (ECM), Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), expansion Higher Education, etc. Trowler (2003:95) defines education 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 being about desired goals.” The definition clearly illustrates that fact that policy is a process, something which is dynamic and not unchangeable. Trowler (2003) further suggests that the ‘dynamic’ comes from: political and educational conflict; interpretation of policy and the practical implication for individuals involved at all levels of the education system. Thus a working and debatable definition of the education policy-making process could be the historical, social and political processes that shape a theme or issue within the education system (Trowler, 2003). Ozga (2000) suggests that policy can be viewed directly in terms as the actions of government, intended to secure certain results. Similarly, it can be considered a process rather than a product, entailing negotiation, opposition or resistance among various segments who might not be a part of the formal machinery of official policy making. Ozga (1990) asserts that educational policy is not an impartial creation and it is also not created entirely at a single level without finding the middle ground with others. In theory, McLaughlin (1987) shows that policy implementation studies demonstrates how the transformation of policy into practice is distinguished by “bargaining and negotiation” and how policy as enacted varies from policy as designed. Research further demonstrates the way officially formulated educational policies are adapted, sometimes altered, when executed in schools and classrooms (Coburn, 2001). Moreover, policies are challenged, interpreted and performed in a variety of areas as words and meanings of policymakers do not always transform directly and clearly into institutional operations. They are inflected, thought over, opposed and misinterpreted, or in a few cases simply prove impracticable. It is also essential not to misjudge the logical rationality of policy (Ball, 2008). State constitutions designate different institutions with task and official authority for education policymaking. In the modern world, constitutional power and responsibility might be the only complete certainties about the state role in education. The state’s central role in reducing the difference between educational policy and implementation cannot be understated. It starts with leadership and the formation and proliferation of a state vision for education that directs policy and decision-making at every level. The existing opportunities for state leadership are unmatched in UK’s history. Education is unquestionably the most prominent domestic policy issue. The nation’s political leaders have achieved rare agreement in projecting the importance of school enhancement at all levels (Usdan et al., 2001). The state holding major legal responsibilities must be the key player in the school improvement movement (Usdan et al., 2001). It must be supported with greater public understanding of its important part and provided the facility to take advantage of the opportunities for leadership now offered (Usdan et al., 2001). Therefore, Gordon Brown (2007) stated that “the foundations of our new approach is that for the first time young people in Britain will be offered education to 18 and for the first time also a clear pathway from school to a career.” The state's intervention by linking the educational sector to the larger economy is expressed most apparently in the process of developing skills in education to ensure economic success. The development of education policies is, in all nations, an ideologically positioned procedure in which current discourses influencing education, focus and function of policies. Education policies are founded on belief systems, perceptions and principles regarding education and its usage (Schiffman, 1996). Policies hold, reproduce and pass on values and assumptions about the concept they look to act on and thus identify what is important and what is prized by those involved in policy making (Considine, 1994). The values and assumptions on which an education policy is founded mold understandings of the concept being planned, and in this way ideology influences education planning at a basic and elemental level (Considine, 1994). Political ideology which is the organization of opinions regarding issues along a left-right dimension is one way that people make sense of an intricate political world (Engel, 2000). In regards to the ideology of the British political system, educational research presents evidence that the Labour Party has been conventionally committed to equality (Labour manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011), while the Conservatives believe in individual freedom (Conservative manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). The two policy camps holding different opinions regarding education reform therefore symbolize opposite perspectives of education that can be observed as distinctive and systematic value systems, that is, ideologies of education (Engel, 2000). The Conservative Party’s perspective supports greater parental choice, interest groups and private organizations to establish their own educational institutions in order to increasing the number of schools from which parents can select (Conservative manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). On the other hand, Labour, proposes permitting parents to employ mergers and takeovers to designate new management teams in troubled educational institutions (Labour manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). Furthermore, Conservatives buttress reforming Britain’s national curriculum and increasing education funding for underprivileged children (Conservative manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). Labour supports wider increases in education expenses, along with an extension of free nursery care (Labour manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). However, in today’s dynamic world, ideology needs to be considered multidimensional, defined by moving towards a centre ground (Furlong, 2002). Education is like national defence in which the whole society has a stake in schools, not just the people being educated (Barber, 1992). An individual may not have children in school, but holds an interest in moulding future citizens and possesses a right to engage in that future through the democratic course (Barber, 1992). These stakeholders are the individual consumers and the whole society (Hirschman, 1970). If producers are given the right to enter the market and consumers have the freedom to choose among producers, education market will be highly responsive to its primary stakeholders, that is, individuals and the society (Hirschman, 1970). The means of control to guarantee this reaction should be the right to be heard that is, the system is adjusted according to its stakeholders through an open and easily accessible democratic process (Hirschman, 1970). The marketisation of education suggests that education policy is a social contract that offers services to people and among these services is education (McCabe et al., 1999). These beliefs are mirrored in the key objectives the ideologies attribute education and the standards they employ to evaluate in realizing those objectives (McCabe et al., 1999). Marketisation of education views the principal job of schools to offer the individual with something functional, specially the skills that give social and economic opportunities (McCabe et al., 1999). The result of educational process is the acquisition of these skills, and educational institutions that make the most of the transfer of these skills with least resource inputs are considered to be the most successful, that is, they are the most efficient (McCabe et al., 1999). These might produce collective benefits, but benefits that generate group advantages are derivative rather than the primary objective or drive in marketisation of education (McCabe et al., 1999). From the Labor perspective, the basic aim of schools is to provide the collective, to create individuals with beliefs and behavioural outlooks that offer persistence of democracy and to justifiably distribute social and economic opportunities (Labour manifesto: 2010 general election party policy, 2011). Several educators consider politics as the main obstacle in their work of educating children and young individuals. They believe that political demands get in the way of doing the right thing, and consequence in them dealing with policies that make the core work of education much more challenging. These policies may prove to be ineffective due restricted funding, uncooperative accountability actions or impractical implementation (Whitty, 2006). Many educators claim that greater authority should be given to expertise; that teachers or other educators should have power over rejection or acceptance of policy changes. However, it is not always obvious who is considered an expert in the field of education. For instance, researchers can be given the authority to device education polices as they possess empirical evidence, but have not, spent much time in classrooms be considered as experts. Furthermore, researchers frequently conflict over the evidence regarding certain education issues, for example, the best way to teach certain skills and on numerous significant issues for which hard empirical evidence is not present. Similarly, teachers can be considered the rightful experts in formulating education policies, but teachers also do not at all have the same opinion regarding different education policies. Likewise, parents might be the actual experts, as they are familiar with their personal preferences and their children. Thus, the assertion of expertise does not resolve the issue of education policy making, firstly, because there is no consensus regarding who should be considered an expert, and secondly, any group of ‘experts’ is also likely to have different opinions regarding important issues (Harris, 2009). For the education system to have public support, then those systems and the individuals in them need to treat parents and students with respect, react to their apprehensions sincerely, provide them information regarding the purpose and objectives of the policy and most of all, acknowledge that every encounter with a student, parent, or member of the public molds to some extent the way individuals think about schools and as a result, their political views regarding education (Ball & Exley, 2010). In conclusion, both state and ideology play a significant role in the policy making process. The state, through different institutions such as politicians, interest groups, professional agencies, policy forums, think tanks and education research, works towards overcoming the difference between educational policy and its implementation. As the state possesses the absolute power and is the key player in the school improvement, therefore, must be supported with greater public support and provided with the facility to take advantage of the opportunities being offered. Similarly, the development of education policies is, in all nations, an ideologically positioned procedure in which current discourses influencing education, focus and function of policies. The values and assumptions on which an education policy is founded mold understandings of the concept being planned, and in this way ideology influences education planning at a basic and elemental level. Thus, political organizations need to work together to bring together their ideologies regarding education policies which would help in the movement towards a center ground. This common ground will facilitate the opening of doors for greater social, political and economical growth of the nation and its citizens. References Ball, S. J. & Exley, S. (2010) ‘Making policy with ‘good ideas’: policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour’, Journal of Education Policy, 25 (2):151-169. Ball, S. J. (2008). The Education Debate: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Barber, B. R. (1992) An aristocracy of everyone: The politics of education and the future of America. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, A., Maguire, M. & Ball, S. (2010) ‘Policy enactment in the UK secondary school: examining policy, practice and school positioning’, Journal of Education Policy, 25(4):547-560. Brown, G. (2007) ‘Gordon Brown: Mansion House speech’, UK in Germany. http://ukingermany.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=Speech&id=4616377 [accessed 29 June 2011] Coburn, C. (2001) ‘Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2):145–170. Conservative manifesto: 2010 general election party policy. (2011) The Telegraph. [Online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto.html [Accessed 9 July 2011] Considine, M. (1994) Public Policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. Engel, M. (2000) The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. Democratic values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Furlong, J. (2002) ‘Ideology and reform in teacher education in England: some reflections on Cochran-Smith and Fries’, Educational Researcher, 31(6):23–25. Harris, A. (2009) ‘Big change question: does politics help or hinder education change?’, Journal of Educational Change, 10:63-67. Hirschman, A.O. (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Labour manifesto: 2010 general election party policy. (2011) The Telegraph [Online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7164930/labour-manifesto.html [Accessed 9 July 2011] Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. (2006) ‘Education policy in the UK’, London School of Economics, http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp57.pdf [accessed 27 June 2011] McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999) ‘Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation’, Journal of Higher Education, 70: 211–234. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987) ‘Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9:171–178. Ozga, J. (1990) ‘Policy research and policy theory: a comment on Halpin and Fitz’, Journal of Education Policy, 5(4):359–362 Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: contested terrain. Buckingham: Open University Press Schiffman, H. (1996) Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge. Townsend, T. (2007) International handbook of school effectiveness and school improvement. Netherlands: Springer Publications. Trowler, P. (2003) Education policy. London: Routledge. Usdan, M., McCloud, B., Podmostko, M. & Cuban, L. (2001). ‘Recognizing the State’s role in public education’, Institute of Educational Leadership. http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/staterole.pdf [accessed 27 June 2011] Whitty, G. (2006) ‘Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?’ British Educational Research Journal, 32, 2, 159-176. Read More

 

Read More