As a member of the doctoral cohort currently taking Karen’s Policy Analysis course, I find myself reflecting on four articles we recently read regarding policies related to accountability in K-12 and higher ed settings. Here are a few of my takeaways:
* The terms we use in policy analysis matter. The term “policy” itself can be interpreted as a lever, a sword, a shield or even a crutch; in each case, the words used in an analysis will frame the issue in a particular way, thus influencing outcomes and effectiveness;
* Context also matters. It strikes me that the constructivist approach we follow in K-12 classroom settings also applies to the sites where policy is enacted. Just as constructivist teachers seek to utilize the prior experiences, interests and passions of the students they teach, policy analysts and policymakers need to take into account the history, present conditions and future aspirations of the specific communities in which their policies will be implemented. To ignore or gloss over these particular contexts is to diminish the likelihood of a policy’s effectiveness. One size does not fit all.
* Since context matters so much, it is important to gain the perspectives of those closest to the ground in terms of implementation. Oftentimes it seems “policy” has a negative connotation associated with a certain distance from daily realities. Policy analysts need to understand those daily realities and that means bringing those who will be directly affected by policies into the conversation.
A Place To Share Ideas for Change
Experienced school leaders (like D.J.) know that the best policies are based on genuine understanding of what will happen when the policy hits reality “on the ground” — implementation is critical.
LikeLike