Lecture 2

 Recap: educational policy sciences and critical educational policy studies

o After WW2: emergence of policy sciences
 decided to do research and collect data to help policy makers and make sure they helped
improve policy making
o 70’s: boom of policy sciences
o 80’s: neoliberalism/neoconservative politics
 neoliberal began to criticize welfare state and break down their rules and regulations and
replace it with neoliberal policymaking which created the following two:
 1. Educational Policy Sciences:
o neutral
o Inserts itself in way in which policies are framed
o Focus on policy texts/policy outcomes
o Research to improve policy (for policy)
 Work with policy to improve the policy
o Policy research is value-free
 2. Critical Educational Policy Studies:
o Driven by values that strongly link to welfare state
 Often driven by Marxist ideas, critical theory, etc.
o Does not insert itself into the way in which policies are framed, but looks at them critically
o Focus on policy context (wide conception of policy) (of policy)
 Only influence policy making process from a distance
o Critical advocacy
o Critique on policy-knowledge alliance:
o policy research is not value free
o policy studies developed to analyze not only rules and regulations and outcomes of policymaking
process, but also look at more broad perspective and look at discourse being used, assumptions
driving policy and begin asking themselves in whose interest this is? Whose assumptions are
supported by these neoliberal policies?
o Cannot work directly with policies so use frameworks to look at the policies from a distance (the
6 frameworks!! – on the other word doc) ****
 Approaches used in (critical) educational policy studies
o Educational policy sciences:
 Economic theory
 Evaluation theory
 Management
 All these to do research FOR policy
o Critical educational policy studies:
 Cultural political theory
 look at education as a site for cultural/social reproduction
 Critical discourse analysis
 drawing ideas of Foucault
 approach language as sites of social struggles – try to critically analyze language
used in educational policy making
 Policy field analysis
 Draws on Bourdieu
 Argues that education is a field (field theory) which organizes it into fields that
fight with each other to maintain position and each field follows different rules
which are influences by capital, social, etc. they have
  Micro-politics
 Look at politics at micro-level – maybe look at what’s happening in the classroom
 Argue that even in smaller contexts there are power relationships at play and try
to identify them
 Feminist theory
 Argue that society is characterized by inequalities and are gendered
 Postcolonial theory
 Argue that society is driven by inequalities as a result from colonization and try to
understand inequalities and influence them through their research
 Philosophical analysis
 Notes about this in reading notes
 Governmentality studies
 Foucauldian perspective
 How we govern ourselves and others 0 argues that governance power relations are
not result of one power figure, one government, etc. but actually starts from idea
of how we govern ourselves is shaped by different rationalities, technologies and
mentalities that are shaped by our government
 All these to do research OF policy
 Exercises:
 1. Abstract:
“This systematic synthesis examines the intended and unintended consequences of performance-based
funding (PBF) policies in higher education. Within this synthesis, we focus particularly on evidence
from research studies with strong causal inference designs in an effort to understand the impacts of these
policies. PBF adoption is generally associated with null or modest positive effects on the intended
outcomes of retention and graduation, but there is also compelling evidence that PBF policies lead to
unintended outcomes related to restricting access, gaming of the PBF system, and disadvantages for
underserved student groups and under-resourced institution types. PBF policies including equity
provisions for colleges that enroll or graduate underserved student groups have been found to offset
some of these unintended consequences. Based on this synthesis, we offer policy recommendations and
directions for future research on PBF policies, including the need to consider variation in policy design
and the broader state policy context.”
 Policy sciences also focus on unintended effects – they look at the effects to make sure they can
improve policy ***
 No critical perspective because it is framing a particular issue, critical scholars don’t frame
themselves in the policy
 This is policy sciences
 2. Abstract:
“Policy problems presented by the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic are many,
and decision makers in education face a number of issues, including admittance of children with AIDS,
testing of employees for the virus, as well as issues relating to the provision of information about AIDS
to students. Education about the routes of transmission and about measures for preventing the
transmission of AIDS certainly constitutes the most promising type of education for curbing its spread.
The problem addressed here involves the issue of local control of educational subject and content. Two
alternatives, local control versus a state mandate for AIDS education, are presented. Criteria against
which the alternatives may be weighed are generated, and an analysis is conducted which evaluates each
alternative against the criteria for choice. A benefit-cost analysis is included.”
o Education policy scientists because there isn’t real analysis of power relationships and distance
taken – not clear how the author takes distance from policy itself and look at what is the
best/most effective? (because they include cost-effective analysis)
 3. Abstract
“This article presents aspects of the regulatory reform work in public sectors was guided by the OECD
in the 1990's manifested in GATS (1995) strategically planned by and through the Bologna Process and
 eagerly elaborated by boards and power holders of universities and university colleges. The tendency is
privatisation which has as a consequence an increasing extension of hierarchical structures,
standardisation and specialisation of educational institutions inclusive universities. Several contradictory
issues appeared in the period. The balancing of demand and supply of the workforce is the foundation of
education, care, social work and health and as such the education of and jobs as teachers, kindergarten
teachers, social workers and nurses. The financial crisis caused by practising the ideology of the free
market and mainly regulated by contracting demands new critical reflexion about the relations between
public and private finance and public and private supply on education and practise. Contradictions are
sharpened by the crisis. The principle of performance-related budgeting and the mix of private and
public financing is a key issue. Educational policies following the WTO agreement (GATS) lead to
instrumental standardization of content, form and quantity in subject matters. This forms a kind of
infrastructural alienation. Strategic goals transfer (educational) responsibilities from the state (the
public) to the individual (the private) constructing the crossroad between “state education” and “market
education”. The global financial crisis impacts conditions and options for regulatory reforms on
structure and function of educational sectors in modern capitalist societies. Our effort is to point out
possible spaces and moments where the public democratically might challenge the hegemonic tendency
with a struggle for empowerment, democratic participation and emancipation.”
o This is critical policy scholar – you see idea of broad perspective on power imposing and
hegemonic tendency
o What is at stake here is empowerment, democratic participation emancipation – try to critically
analyze different policy making processes to stimulate process where public can challenge
hegemonic tendency
o Can see the words used like privatization, instrumentalization, etc., that they are taking a distance
 4. Title: “Education as class warfare”
o Implied a power struggle between classes – the writer of this book presents education as a
battlefield between different classes
o Critical policy scholar
 5. Abstract
“This article analyses whether the extent of public welfare provision influences the speed at which
(quasi-) jobless households get (back) into employment. (Quasi-)joblessness is one of the key criteria
defining the risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU. Moreover, the perceived tension between the
main functions of social benefits (protecting households from poverty and incentivising job search) is
most acute among these households. Based on EU-SILC data, we examine changes of household work
intensity during one year after benefit receipt. We observe that “more-generous” social benefits have a
slightly negative impact. This can potentially be due to a disincentive effect of social benefits, but it can
also mean that the additional financial leeway is used by job seekers to wait for more adequate job offers
or engage in further training. Even though statistically significant, the estimated negative effects are very
small.”
o Policy sciences because seem to focus on effectiveness and improving of only one policy
 Contemporary challenges to critical educational policy studies today
o Critical education policy studies emerged in ‘80s/’90s
 In reaction to neoliberal regime of government that was emerging
o Today: different world: travelling liberalism
 No longer the world of 80s/90s
 Now we see neoliberalism that is existing everywhere (a global neoliberalism)
 A globalized neoliberal world with strong global connectedness, market and
situation of neoliberalism where in many states have privatization and
deregulation along with rise of new technologies (FB, google) that take monopoly
positions (globally) and influence educational reality
 The state was a single entity that could be analyzed in 80s/90s but today it is no
longer the case, the state is now only one of the actors in the network of
 governments globally
 Education affected by not only state and local authorities but global/transitional
authorities along with industries
o Have international authorities (EU, UNESCO) and they often work
together to influence education
o Have many different types of governance today that is very different than
governance in 80s/90s
 New governance where classical distinction that shaped society before no longer
stands
o Governance with classical distinctions between market, state, and society
 Distinctions between public vs. private
o Today, it is very difficult to make these distinctions and different actors
interact that make it difficult for the critical scholar to fully grasp new
policy reality so they are not confronted with the following challenges:
o 7 contemporary challenges for critical educational policy studies -
 1. Between old-fashioned parochialism and cosmopolitanism
 Different forms of governance shape our society today
 Different forms of parochialism
o Parochialism:
 State used to be main unit of analysis and explained situation of
educational policy making in 80s/90s
 Now, we globalize educational policy context and the approach
from 80s/90s could be like looking at a parish and not doing
enough for the actual situation
 Not doing justice to actual situation (too limited understanding)
and this is a sort of parochialism
 Treating a unit, a parish, as a main unit of analysis that is a whole
set of other influences
o What is education policy?
 In 80s/90s it was a separate field of practice
 Today, strongly relates to labor policy – is education policy still a
separate field of policy?
o Relation policy – education- society? Does the welfare connection still
stand?
 Does idea of education that contributes to social welfare and more
socially just society still stand? Is it still a reality? Could still be an
ambition
o Education as a separate sector?
 Relates to education policy as a separate field of practice, in
80s/90s was a separate sector but today with lifelong learning or
dual-learning it can be linked to other sectors (i.e. youth,
innovation, culture, etc.)
o Institutional parochialism?
 Can institutions of education still be maintained? In the past, there
were rigid understandings of universities, primary schools, etc. and
now we see expansion of educational institutions
 Not only about training students for diploma, but now can
give micro-credentials that could lead to life-long learning
or take into the private sector
o Methodological statism?
 State is the main actor that explains educational policy context and
 now the state is just one of the actors (now state is connected to
EU, private sector, UNESCO, OECD)
o Focus on classical patterns of power?
 Can we still assume classical patterns of power continue to exist?
In 80s/90s = classical patterns of power would be state, trade
unions, umbrella organizations, teachers and IF there was policy
making that didn’t go well, there would be protests on the streets
(classical patterns of power and resistance)
 Today in global network of education, do these patterns still stand?
What is role of trade union today when policies try to be resisted?
What kind of resistance exists today in time of social media and
contemporary networks?
 Response to question of how contemporary critical scholars try to answer
these questions:
o Some re-focus their lens and focus on the intersection between local and
global (de-parochialised)
 ! Risk of ‘academic cosmopolitanism’ (and assumed/soft
universalism)
 Risk to assume all actors think alike globally – an
assumption of universalism which is not the case since
they’re all driven by their own ideas
o Ambiguity! Policy is today at once post-national and shaped by local,
cultural, political contingencies
o How to deal with the global/local?
 How can critical scholars deal with this new reality where global
and local merge?
 2. Research scripts for the global scene
 Globalisation = “policy of globalization”
 Today we live in global connectedness, so should we see this as an actual policy
of itself – a global policy?
“do not speak of ‘globalization’ as if it were a natural process” (Bourdieu)
 How to deal with the policy of globalisation?
 Critical educational policy scholars have started to address this policy of
globalisation
 Two challenges:
 1. International comparisons are part of the global regime of power
o how to position oneself vis-à-vis comparative research?
o Ex: PISA results, how to position oneself in type of research that support
globalization?
 2. In search of global critical advocacy?
o Whom to address? Who is the public that has to be informed?
o Critical scholars do try to influence policy by writing studies, explaining
power plays that exist, or even directly work with NGOs and trade unions
to indirectly influence policy
o But not, how do they directly influence policy making in a context that is
shaped by a context of globalization? Who is the public they need to
address?
o Ex: looking at influence of Google in Flemish classroom, and they want to
indirectly influence policy, which public do they need to inform to do so?

 3. The new state of the old state

  How to deal with with/understand the new state?
 International governance: what is role of the state?
o Role of state has changed, before the state was main character, now it is
one actors among other actors trying to influence/shape the governance
structure/network governance
o State as an actor amongst actors
o State is not abolished, but role of the state changes
 The state: no longer the explanans (but explanandum)
o It is one of the factors that needs to be explained in contemporary
educational studies situation
 State government as part of a broader system of educational governance – can no
longer be main explanatory value over educational policy
 Methodological statism no longer stands
 4. Right way solutions by third way policies
 End of 1970s – 1980s: neoliberalism/neoconservative (Reagan, Thatcher, …) →
emergence of critical educational policy studies
 1980’s third way policies: reaction to neoliberalism (cf. Blair, Clinton ….)
o There is a clear shift in policy rhetoric
o But is there also a shift in policy instrumentation? Or rather a continuity?
 No longer social democracy = socially just/ neoliberal = socially unjust
 How to deal with a policy making that is using a progressive rhetoric?
o At the end of the 70s/80s, had politicians that tried to create neoliberal
policy making
o At end of 90s, see neoliberal governance used with politicians that have
progressive agenda and adopt neoliberal policy instrumentation – Third
Wave Policies (progressives of left-wing politicians, policy makers, etc.
that continue adopting neoliberal policy strategies)
 Like the example above about social justice, but can still have
policy scientists dealing with progressive ideals
 Answer in this new situation where progressive agendas are supported by
neoliberal agendas:
o Important to remain critical towards a policy making that is
understood/perceived as progressive
 When policy makers use idea of inclusion i.e., does this policy
contribute to a more just world or are there also power plays within
this policy making?
 Only because policy is presented as socially just does not mean it
IS just and a critical scholar needs to remain critical
o Need to investigate the power of concepts, need to focus on policy
instruments
o Rethink idea of social justice and equity through education policy
 5. Between theoretical inspiration and inspired theories
 How to build robust explanatory theories that are informed by empirical and
theoretical research?
 In critical educational policy studies research you see 2 types of theory:
 On the one hand: theory driven research
 On the other hand: case-based research
o Empirical research, but not strongest theory building or very generalizable
 How to build theories informed by empirical and theoretical research?
o It needs to develop research driven by a concern of the researcher
o Driven by a concern and use that as a starting point to do theoretical
 reflections and empirical research
 6. Research that works and unemployed research
 How to position oneself to evidence-based policies and evidence producing
research?
 Evidence supporting policy making process like PISA or OECD results
o Global emphasis on evidence-based policy making
 Governance by number/policy as numbers
 How does critical scholar position oneself towards these evidence-based
policies and research produced by scientists?
o Needed: critical analysis of current ‘analysis for policy’
 Not only critical of policy making but also how policy making is
used
o Not only address ‘politics of education’, educational policy but also
critically research ‘politics of education policy research’
 Critical of education policy research AND policy making
 7. Critical policy makers and concerned scholars
 Common assumption of ‘critical researchers’:
o Critical education policy scholars start from idea that there is social
construction of facts/problems AND a power play
o this construction involves power (that criticists can reveal/un-mask)
o Need to take a distance to have awareness of this construction opens space
for re-construction
o Need to understand how these are shaping problems and can reveal to the
public how these power plays are at stake
 Social construction affecting problems and the critical scholar can
try to de-construct these facts/problems and show which
assumptions support these and the awareness of these opens space
for re-construction*****
 These assumptions have become common and are sometimes embraced (and
‘used’) by policy-makers:
o EX: policy makers who argue that global warming is a scientific construct
and that there is politics and power in this – Trump i.e. saying these
problems are constructed by climate scientists pushing own agenda and
that their observations are filled with politics and power
o Presenting specific research as filled with power/ideology
 How they are presented is a result of ideological agenda
 Today we see policy makers using these ideas of power to promote
their own ideologies / framing problems in specific ways
o Neoliberal concern + broad conception of power/policy
o Post-truth politics
o How to deal with policy makers who also assume that facts are socially
constructed and frame problems in a certain way?
 Discussion between critical educational policy scholar and policy
maker can become one side vs. the other claiming each of their
points are filled with their own ideologies
 How to deal with this?
o In need of new critical education policy orientation?
 Remaining driven by a social, educational, moral concern
 Not just unmasking
 but also making things public, bring a public together around a
concern
  Before, the critical scholar would do the job by showing the
public what the policy is and how they took distance from
it and how it is filled with different
powers/interests/assumptions but that is no longer enough!
 No longer enough to unmask/question what is taken for
granted, but critical scholar should also play a role in
indirectly influencing policies by bringing public around
the concern (driven by ideas of Latour)
o Ex: bring public around concern or climate change
and the climate scientist may contribute to more
democratic policy making context and different
interactions
 Towards a new realism: rationale of the course
o ‘matters of concern’
 “the critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naïve believers, but
the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather” (Latour)
 critical research: “making things public”, that is, to help to constitute “matters of public
concern” by transforming what policies regard as matters of fact into “an issue to talk
about” (Latour)
 perhaps, the orientation of critical education policy studies:
 is no longer/only: unmask/reveal (‘you are wrong’)
 but is: turning education again in a matter of (public) concern, so it can be
(publicly) discussed again (“the public, and its education”)
o try to show how specific topic is of public concern and can discuss things
as a public around a concern
o In exam: will be asked to write policy recommendation in public
 thus, to act as concerned scholars in an age of critical policy makers