The Statement of Policy and Authority - Essay Example

Policy Affiliation] What is Policy? Over the years, a number of definitions have been offered for what policy is thereby revealing that policy is a much-contested notion. Dye (1992) has offered the simplest definition, arguing that policy is “whatever governments opt to do or not to do” (as cited in Eisner, Worsham, & Ringquist, 2000, p. 4). From this, two points may be formed: first, Dye is concerned about public policy, thereby ignoring the fact that other institutions make policy too. Second, non decision-making sometimes is as much a policy expression as an actual decision formulated. Considerable manifestations of policy and power are usually apparent when things remain the same or when issues are not discussed or are intentionally suppressed. This way, policy can be expressed in silence, intentional or unplanned. Policy is whatever institutes, firms, and governments have arranged to do during a particular period. According to Colebatch (2009), policy is a term that can be employed in various circumstances and by diverse groups to justify what governs them in the way they think about what the world should be and how they should act. Colebatch has gathered a number of definitions of policy: use of power to attain objectives; a purposive path of action; a predictable program of objectives, values and practices; a path of action by government aimed to attain particular outcomes. An important thing is that a policy ought to have an objective. Colebatch (2009) claims that policy articulates itself in three manners: order, authority, and expertise. Hogwood and Gunn (1984) suggested numerous meanings for policy concept more than 20 years ago (as cited in Potucek & Vass, 2003). Their argument is that the concept of policy is variously employed to express a label for a field of activity, such as education policy as an expression of a broad function, as a program, and as both output and result. On the other hand, Wedel and others (2005), as cited in Rizvi and Lingard (2010), have suggested that policy refers to “a field of activity, such as education policy” (p. 4). They claim it is a particular proposal, government legislation, a general program and what governments attain. Consequently, a public policy defines the actions and positions taken by the state consisting of a range of institutions sharing the crucial features of authority and collectivity. According to the dictionary, policy refers to principles, directions and rules created or adopted by an institution to attain its prolonged goals. Policy is usually identical with decisions, whereas a personal decision in seclusion does not amount to policy. A policy articulates decisions patterns in the context of other decisions adopted by political actors on behalf of state establishments from authoritative positions. Therefore, public policies are normative articulating ends and means intended to guide the actions and a conduct of people. Lastly, policy refers to things which can be achieved in principle in matters over which authority can be practiced. According to Rizvi and Lingard (2010, p. 5), policy exceeds a particular text or policy document. Instead, a policy is both a process and a product. In this conceptualization, a policy entails “the production of the text, the text itself, progressing adjustments to the text and processes of implementation into practice” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 5). Policy concerns change and through it the government aims at reforming educational systems, for instance. It wishes or visualizes transformation thereby offering a visualized future state of issues, although in expressing an aimed transformation usually provides an account somewhat more simplified than the exact realities of practice. Policies in many ways shun complexity. Considered from the generality level, policies could be perceived more of a recipe than a proposal. A policy is made to promote comprehension and action without ever being certain of the practices it may yield. The policy process may be conceptualized with regard to the policy cycle, a view that opposes linear account of associations amid the policy setting agendas, the production of the policy text, and its execution into practice. Instead, the perspective of a policy cycle points to the confused, usually contested and non-linear associations existing amid aspects and levels of policy procedures. According to Rizvi and Lingard (2010), there are various contexts of the policy cycle: influence context, text production context, and practice/implementation context. These contexts are contested; for instance, the production of policy texts is contested because there are trials to conciliate, run, and accommodate rival interests. Similarly, Colebatch (2009) applies a cycle model to show the policy process and divides it in five apparent stages namely “determination of goals, selecting the courses of action, implementation of courses of action, evaluation of the results, and modifying the policy” (p.48). Policies characterize the short-lived settlements amid varied, competing, and imbalanced forces with general society, in the state, and amid related discursive regimes. From the literary criticism theories, it is clear that most policy texts are heteroglossic in character. This implies that policy texts usually seek to stitch together and over opposing interest and values. Similarly, policies normally seek to characterize their wished or visualized future as being in the public interest, on behalf of the public good. Consequently, they usually mask whose welfare they in fact represent. Therefore, contestation occurs starting from the time of the emergence of an issue on the policy agenda, via starting of action and to the unavoidable trade-offs engaged in formulation and execution (Rivzi & Lingard, 2010). Policies are assembled as reactions to recognized issues in a field, such as education. However, here we ought to know the discursive work, which policies do in creating issues in particular ways, probably dissimilar from the suggestions of analysis of theoretical and research-based studies. The nature of the issues is never obvious, although is usually characterized in a particular way from a specific viewpoint. Therefore, a policy offers remedies to issues created by the policy itself. How Policy (Education Policy) work in Relation to Globalization The education sector in most countries has been undergoing widespread reform compelled either by globalization or as preparedness for globalization. Education policy is the set of laws and rules governing the running of education systems. Education comes in numerous forms for many intentions through numerous institutions. Exemplars are early childhood education, kindergarten, different grades, colleges, and universities. Thus, education policy can directly influence the education individuals undertake at all ages. An education policy mainly scrutinizes matters pertaining to size of the school and class, choice of school, privatization of schools, teacher qualifications, payments, and curricula to mention but a few. It is through policies that governments seek to reform educational systems to work in relation to globalization. The implications of the education processes, particularly as they turn into a public matter, go well above the endeavour to develop the individual self-education in the society; education has become not only an expense but also a venture. As a result, the political connotations of education go beyond the stipulations of a person to receive education and comprise a calculated number of decisions which have an impact on the society, hence the significance of education as a public policy. In the last two centuries, education policies can logically be seen as political responses to the opportunities and challenges arising from the ‘economic and extra economic’ aspects ‘and decomposition of Fordism tendencies of globalization (Jessop, 2002). Globalization has become the catchphrase of the last decade, and it has reached every corner of the society. It raises new issues and throws a new light on some old issues, which indicates the need for changes in the way the education community thinks of itself in the international context and the way it shares problems and collaborates in the search for solutions. Blackmore and Sachs (2007) argued that globalization has developed into an ideological discourse which drives change and that there is an urgency perception in the need to respond to a novel world arrangement, in which the new forms are not totally pledges and the old ones are not dead. The drive for change has been felt in the education sector as countries devise new policies for responding to the new world order brought about by globalization. Globalization is an apparent set of changes which include the shaping of novel worldwide forms in culture, the technologies, and media, which nations have to accept and follow in order to embrace competitions and to respond positively (Van Damm, 2001). This means that the old education policies have to be changed to enable countries to embrace competition and to respond well to forces brought about by globalization. In addressing the global competition concerns and partly as a response to globalization impacts, education has become a very important sector, and organizing educational achievement and restructuring educational policy are demanded. The UNESCO 2001 proceedings held in Paris were convened to discuss the impact that globalization has on higher education, especially on sensitive issues such as accreditation, quality and the recognition of qualifications. Globalization demands and imposes priorities and rules which supersede the long-wished objective on incorporation means for worldwide cooperation in education. The education policies have, as a result, become increasingly globalized. According to Rizvi and Lingard (2010), education systems around the world have become larger and more complex, and, as a result, governments have been unwilling and unable to pay for educational solutions. This has led to a universal shift to neoliberal orientations from the social democratic orientations in thinking about education governance and purposes, resulting in policies of privatization, corporatization and commercialization and greater demand for accountability. Rizvi and Lingard (2010) further argue that educational purposes have also been re-defined in terms of a limited number of concerns regarding the development of human capital. In addition, a function education has is to take part to rally the requirements of the universal economy and to guarantee national economy competitiveness. All policies are about change, and, as a result, the government seeks to reform the education systems to align with the wide aspects of globalization. Education policy-making is the prescriptive regulation of flows of human resources, capital, and discourse across educational systems towards normative economic, social, and cultural ends (Luke & Hogan, 2006). This implies that education policies attempt to change the practices and behaviour of the education community to steer change in a direction matched with the needs for competition in a world, which has become a global village as a result of globalization. Globalization has transformed the discursive terms in which issues of education policies linked to pedagogy, curriculum, and evaluation are currently discussed. The social and economic forces allied with globalization have habituated the framework in which the education operates and has changed individual experience of both informal and formal education. Globalization has allowed market mechanisms to be the main director of the destiny of individuals when it comes to education, as governments endeavour to match the needs of a world, which is increasingly become interconnected. Most policymakers have looked for market solutions automatically, and the impact and the pervasiveness of these globalization forces imply an essential focus on learning and education. The more important features pertaining to experiences and practices of education are the commercial takeover and commodification of education, the risk of autonomy of the countrywide education system, changing technologies, de-localization, and orientation in education. Tandon (2005) argues that one of the key impacts of globalization on education has been the corporatization and commodification of institutions of higher learning; for instance, the for-profit education market in the US is over $500 billion in profits for the involved companies. The turning of education into an article of trade, putting it in market terms, and encouraging the entrance of business matters are taken as a neo-liberal politics in a certain area or state. Globalization has also had an effect on policies when it comes to the governance of education. It has had an impact on the types of agencies, which educate youngsters, adults, and children. The globalization process affects the education endeavours, which are ominous to the self-governance of the nationwide education systems, as well as self-governance of a national state as the main ruler in self-governing communities. It is also altering the essential stipulations of an education system grounded on aptness in the society, a society distinguished by familiarity as well as proximity. Most national governments seem to hold significant freedom as regards intervening in the education systems. For instance, the UK government has increased the scale of intervention and central direction significantly by using national curriculum requirements, unique initiatives (such as free education for all), as well as other institutional means. Nevertheless, the nature of this intervention expansion is based on an overriding concern of international competitiveness and economic growth. Wolf (2002) posits that governments’ policies are no longer taking into consideration the fact that education had any other function except promoting development. Globalization has also led to direct interventions in the national education systems governance by global organizations, for instance World Bank and IMF. The impact of globalization in such countries’ education policies are most felt as governments have to manage the national educational policies in such a manner that they adapt to the pressure of the international market forces. The education policies are thus conditioned by neo-liberalism and globalization and in which asymmetrical power relations are evident. The circulation of education policy ideas currently takes place against a backdrop of a range of regional and international formal and informal settlements. The settlements are expressed in terms of conventions and consensus, which expose the national policy practices to external scrutiny and dictates. Such practices reduce national education policy autonomy that nations possess to set their own policy priorities. Similarities and Differences between the Readings The readings reviewed are similar in that they present views on matters pertaining to policy as argued by different scholars. However, none of the scholars presents a similar definition of policy, although the ideas presented are homogeneous. Most of the ideas presented cannot yield a universal definition of policy. By comparing Rizvi’s and Lingard’s (2010) contexts with Colebatch’s (2009) cycle, one can see some evident similarities; for instance, the implementation process, which implies that the policy process begins by identifying the objectives and is lastly implemented. On the other hand, the readings offer different aspects of policy. In all the readings, the question of what a policy is remains unanswered. While the paper has offered an insight into the debate concerning policy, no substantial definition has been achieved, nor have any of the major answers provided concerning the policy issue have been made clear. Notably, it is hard to obtain an authoritative definition. According to Colebatch (2009), the problem of defining a policy seems to be an unending issue, because the conclusion of his readings implies that the task with a policy is to find what establishes the way things are accomplished. In conclusion, the above review has not tackled all the aspects pertaining to policy, thereby leaving many unanswered queries, but it has provided a general representation of the issue. References Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and reforming leaders, gender, education restructuring, and organizational change. Albany: State University of New York Press. Colebatch, H.K. (2009). Policy (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Eisner, M., Worsham, J., & Ringquist, E. (2000). Contemporary regulatory policy. USA: Lynne Rienner Publisher, Inc. Jessop, B. (2002). Globalization and the national state. In S. Aronowitz and P. Bratsis (eds.), Paradigm lost: State theory reconsidered. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press. Luke, A., & Hogan, D. (2006). Redesigning what counts as evidence in education policy: the Singapore model. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, and T. Popkewitz (eds.), Education research and policy steering the knowledge-based economy. London: Routledge. Potucek, V., & Vass, L. (2003). Dimension of public policy: values, processes, implementation and results. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=books&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martinpotucek.cz%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_rubberdoc%26view%3Ddoc%26id%3D7%26format%3Draw%26lang%3Dcs&ei=4D0dUM68OdKLhQevg4HwAg&usg=AFQjCNHJm1Uz-AflDnp97VeOljOI44lnzQ&sig2=gI-3l6TUKag9EhTbXPIOJg Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York: Routledge. Tandon, S. (2005). Globalization: impact on education. Retrieved from http://www.satishtandon.com/globaledu.html. Van Damme, D. (2001). Higher education in the age of globalization: The need for a new regulatory framework for recognition, quality assurance, and accreditation. Introductory Paper for the UNESCO Expert Meeting, Paris. 10-11 September 2001. Wolf, A. (2002). Does education matter? Myths about education and economic growth. London: Penguin. Read More