Wikipedia

Education policy

Education policy consists of the principles and policy decisions that influence the field of education, as well as the collection of laws and rules that govern the operation of education systems.[1] Education governance is often shared across local, state, and federal levels. Some analysts view education policy as a form of social engineering.[2]

Education occurs in diverse forms across various institutions. Examples of such educational institutions may include early childhood education centers, kindergarten to 12th grade schools, two- and four-year colleges or universities, graduate and professional education institutes, adult-education establishments, and job-training schemes. The goals of these institutions help shape education policy.[3] Furthermore, these education policies can affect the education people engage in at all ages.

Key areas of debate in education policy, specifically from the field of schools, include school size, class size, school choice, school privatization, police in schools, tracking, teacher selection, education and certification, teacher pay, teaching methods, curricular content, graduation requirements, school-infrastructure investment, and the values that schools are expected to uphold and model.

Education policy also addresses challenges in higher education. The Pell Institute analyzes the barriers experienced by teachers and students within community colleges and universities. These issues involve undocumented students, sex education, and federal-grant aides.[4]

Education policy analysis is the systematic study of education policies. It seeks to answer questions about the purpose of education, the objectives (societal and personal) that it is designed to attain, the methods for attaining them, and the tools for measuring their success or failure. Research intended to inform education policy is carried out in a wide variety of institutions and in many academic disciplines. For example, researchers are affiliated with schools and departments of education, public policy, psychology, economics, sociology, and human development. Additionally, sociology, political science, economics, and law are disciplines that can be used to better understand how education systems function, their impacts, and how policies might be changed under different conditions. Education policy is sometimes[when?] considered a sub-field of social policy and public policy. Examples of education policy analysis may be found in such academic journals as Education Policy Analysis Archives and in university-policy centers such as the National Education Policy Center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Education reform in the United States

edit
Official seal of the United States Department of Education
Official seal of the United States Department of Education

Over the past 30 years, policymakers have seen a steady increase in their involvement at the state and federal levels of government in US schools. According to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, state governments have the main authority on education. State governments spend most of their budgets funding schools, whereas only a small portion of the federal budget is allocated to education.[5] The federal government advances its role by building on state and local education policies.[6] Over time, the role of the federal government grew through federal education policies that affected the funding and evaluation of education.[7] For example, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was established in 1958 to increase federal funding to schools, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress was created to track and compare student performance in academic subjects across the states.[6] Moreover, the United States Department of Education was created in 1979.[6]

Education reform is currently being seen as a "tangled web" due to the nature of the education authority. Some education policies are being defined at either the federal, state or local level and in most cases, their authorities overlap one another.[8] This manner of authority has led many to believe education governance is inefficient. Compared to other OECD countries, educational governance in the US is more decentralized, and most of its autonomy is found within the state and district levels. The reason for this is that US citizens put an emphasis on individual rights and fear federal government overreach.[9] A 2011 report by the National Center on Education and the Economy believes that the education system is neither coherent nor likely to see improvements due to the nature of it.[10]

A critical race theory analysis of the history of education reform in the United States reveals the influence of systemic racism on educational policy. Historically, educational policy changes have resulted from progress from protest, and such progress has met with pushback.[11]

Teacher policy

edit

Teacher policy is education policy that addresses the preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers.[12] A teacher policy is guided by the same overall vision and essential characteristics as the wider education policy: it should be strategic, holistic, feasible, sustainable, and context-sensitive. Overall objectives and major challenges to be addressed, the funding to achieve these objectives, the demographic parameters of the learner population, and the human resources required to achieve universally accessible quality education should all be addressed in a comprehensive teacher policy.[13]

Nine key dimensions

edit

Nine key dimensions are considered crucial to any comprehensive teacher policy: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, Teacher education (initial and continuing), Deployment, Career Structures/Paths, Teacher Employment and Working Conditions, Teacher Reward and Remuneration, Teacher Standards, Teacher Accountability, and School Governance.[13]

Teacher Recruitment and Retention

edit

An effective education system must have a safe way to attract, recruit, and retain outstanding educators. There has been a growing demand for teachers, but the supply continues to decline, and many leave the profession.[14] This development is a threat to the "academic and economic welfare of students". It affects learning and drains taxpayers' money.[15] The federal and state governments, along with the districts, must invest in complete human capital systems. It is the best approach to preparing and retaining committed and capable mentors for the long term.[16] A reasonable strategy in talent management for the education sector must focus on recruitment, development, and retention of intelligent and efficient teachers.[17]

Teacher Education (Initial and Continuing)

edit

Teachers need to go back to school periodically to become better educators.[18] Good mentors can become outstanding by going further than textbooks. This is the logic behind continuing education. Technology in the form of web-based workshops and lectures will be helpful.[19] School administrators and district officials must push their teachers to make use of available resources and opportunities to continue the learning process. Conferences with workshops are also valuable because these activities provide teachers with tools for integrating technology in the classroom and for earning Continuing Professional Development Units to boost their careers.[20] School administrators must ensure that teachers are not only competent in classroom management but also in protecting students from harm such as bullying.[21]

Gender equality

edit
Twenty countries whose education sector plans were reviewed from a gender equality perspective

Quality and timely data and evidence are key factors for policy-making, planning, and the delivery to advance gender equality in and through education. They can help countries to identify and analyze gendered patterns and trends, and better plan and target resources to address gender inequalities. They can also help to identify and inform interventions that influence participation, learning, and empowerment, from early childhood to tertiary education and beyond.[22]

Though the SDG 4 monitoring framework is a step forward in the policy process, a complete monitoring framework for gender equality in and through education should include indicators that consider:

  • Social and gender norms,
  • Values and attitudes (many of which can be influenced by education).
  • Education laws and policies, as well as legislation and policies outside of the education system.
  • Resource distribution; and teaching and learning practices and environments.[23][24]

Efforts are also needed to track disparities in informal and non-formal learning contexts with a lifelong learning approach, and to ensure that data are collected on the most excluded.[22]

See also

edit

Sources

edit

References

edit
  1. ↑ "Education Policy". www.rand.org. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
  2. ↑ Wilson, Harold E. (1978). Social Engineering in Singapore: Educational Policies and Social Change, 1819-1972. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Singapore University Press. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
  3. ↑ Roumell, Elizabeth Anne; Salajan, Florin D.; Todoran, Corina (July 2020). "A Survey of U.S. Education Policy Regarding the Education of Adults". Educational Policy. 34 (5): 785–815. doi:10.1177/0895904818802416. ISSN 0895-9048. S2CID 150146152.
  4. ↑ American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with eating disorders (2nd ed). Washington, DC: Author.
  5. ↑ Coggins, C. (2017). How to be heard: 10 lessons teachers need to advocate for their students and profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  6. 1 2 3 Kessinger, T. A. (2011). "Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958: A review of seven major initiatives". American Educational History Journal. 38 (2): 263–276. doi:10.1108/978-1-61735-513-420251017.
  7. ↑ Schueler, B. E.; Bleiberg, J. F. (2021). "Evaluating Education Governance: Does State Takeover of School Districts Affect Student Achievement?". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 41 (1): 162–192. doi:10.1002/pam.22338. S2CID 241349946.
  8. ↑ Manna, Paul; McGuinn, Patrick (2013). "The Tall Task of Education Governance Reform". Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 375–392. ISBN 978-0-8157-2394-3. JSTOR 10.7864/j.ctt4cg877.20.
  9. ↑ Vergari, Sandra (2013). "Education Governance in Canada and the United States". Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 231–251. ISBN 978-0-8157-2394-3. JSTOR 10.7864/j.ctt4cg877.14.
  10. ↑ Tucker, Marc (2011). "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform." NCEE. https://ncee.org/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants-an-american-agenda-for-education-reform/
  11. ↑ Gillborn, D. (2013). "Racism as Policy: A Critical Race Analysis of Education Reforms in the United States and England". The Educational Forum. 78 (1): 26–41. doi:10.1080/00131725.2014.850982. S2CID 144670114.
  12. ↑ UNESCO. "Teacher policies: Preparation, Recruitment and Retention of Quality Teachers/Educators". UNESCO. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016.
  13. 1 2 UNESCO (2015). Teacher policy development guide: summary (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 14, 18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-05.
  14. ↑ Strauss, Valerie (2017-11-27). "Analysis | Why it's a big problem that so many teachers quit — and what to do about it". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  15. ↑ Center, Foundation. "High Teacher Turnover Hurting Students, Study Finds". Philanthropy News Digest (PND). Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  16. ↑ "Solving the Teacher Shortage How to Attract and Retain Excellent Educators". Learning Policy Institute. 15 September 2016. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  17. ↑ Douglas, Emily (17 February 2015). "7 Steps for a Balanced Recruitment AND Retention Strategy". Education Week. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  18. ↑ "Continuing education must be in-depth". @GI_weltweit. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  19. ↑ "The Value of Workshops and Continuing Education for Teachers". The EvoLLLution. 2012-08-10. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  20. ↑ "Teachers' Continuing Professional Development at the University of Washington". faculty.washington.edu. Retrieved 2018-06-30.
  21. ↑ Burger, C.; Strohmeier, D.; Kollerová, L. (2022). "Teachers can make a difference in bullying: Effects of teacher interventions on students' adoption of bully, victim, bully-victim or defender roles across time". Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 51 (12): 2312–2327. doi:10.1007/s10964-022-01674-6. ISSN 0047-2891. PMC 9596519. PMID 36053439. S2CID 252009527.
  22. 1 2 UNESCO (2019). From access to empowerment: UNESCO strategy for gender equality in and through education 2019-2025. UNESCO. ISBN 978-92-3-100330-1.
  23. ↑ UNESCO. 2018. Global Education Monitoring Report Gender Review: Meeting Our Commitments to Gender Equality in Education. Paris, UNESCO.
  24. ↑ Unterhalter E. 2015. 'Measuring Gender Inequality and Equality in Education', Concept paper prepared for workshop Beyond Parity: Measuring Gender Equality in Education, London, 18–19 September 2015. London, University College of London, Institute of Education.

Information on education policy, OECD - Contains indicators and information about education policy in OECD countries.

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_policy&oldid=1350933191"