In many areas of life - any kind of healthcare, finance, business - we expect advice and legislation to be based on some kind of evidence. And yet when it comes to education, the work of researchers has more often been regarded as a test and a challenge to ideas than creating a basis of evidence for policy.
A new study published by the CfBT Education Trust and authored by LSN looks at the process of how education policy has actually been made over the past 25 years; what factors and people are most important in the policy-making formula, with insights from civil servants and ministers who were involved, including David Blunkett, Estelle Morris and Stephen Yeo.
According to the study, one of the most powerful motive forces, particularly in recent years as the pace of political appointments has quickened, has simply been the sense of political urgency, a feeling that 'something must be done'. Ideology has played a part of course, especially attitudes to the need for "marketisation" in education. Other factors have been what's happening internationally and what appears to have delivered results; cost; the likely popularity of an idea. with the electorate; the influence of pressure groups, and the personal experiences of policy-makers themselves.
The interviewees for the study pointed in particular to the increasing power of the Prime Minister and senior figures in making final decisions. Whereas in the past there might have been a reliance on experts, the nature of Government meant that Number 10 would want to appoint advisers around them who shared their beliefs and could help enforce them. Public opinion was not considered to be an important factor - but pressure from the media was, and its attention to the short term was seen to create severe difficulties for policy making. The potential reaction of the press was said to be assessed early, and was regarded as having been a crucial factor in decisions, such as the rejection of Tomlinson’s proposals for reform of post-16 qualifications, written off as ‘foolhardy’ because of press attitudes to the value of A levels.
Although recognised as a factor in policy-making, reasoned research evidence has struggled to compete with other contingencies and demands. In particular, it's the post-16 sector which is believed to see the greatest gap between skills policies and the evidence. The distance between evidence and policy seems to grow the longer a government is in power and principles are subject to greater and more complex pressures. The influence of the advisers and think tanks that explored options as politicians prepared for power starts to fade. There are changes in ministerial positions and ministers are more likely to want to make a headline or avoid negative media coverage, and desire to show through the media that there arestill new ideas on offer. A particular problem has been the apparent need to either ignore or make attacks upon research evidence which contradicts or criticises education policy, and a general belief that research serves more to undermine than to be the basis for developing policy.
Any kind of intervention in schools - raising levels of attainment, tactics for dealing with bullying, providing careers advice - needs to be based on research into what actually works. Easier to say than to implement, but a principle which needs to be championed and insisted upon more often. To bring about a shift towards more education-based policy as a political tool, the research authors call for the creation of an education version of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
The influence of this kind of advisory body might be strengthened by the appointment of a single person as a "Chief Education Officer", similar to the existing Chief Medical Officer, to provide an authoritative voice of reason when debate becomes overheated and truth gets caught up in the contests of ideology, and help re-dress the balance between experts and senior political advisers.
There is also a responsibility on all those involved in education research. As one contributor to the report put it: "the issue is not to improve policy makers’ use of research as much as researchers’ use of politics". Engagement with policy through research needs to be constructive and aware of what might be controversial, and the need to handle communications effectively rather than looking purely for attention and a voice through the media. And perhaps this is the whole crux of the situation, the need for a 'civilising' of the policy-research cycle: the more policy-makers pay attention to solid evidence the less need education researchers will have to bang a drum for their work to be heard, and as a result, governments will be able to sleep a little easier and look on the latest research offerings with a greater sense of sympathy and purpose.
Karen Whitby is Research Manager at CfBT Education Trust. Copies of the report, Instinct or Reason: How education policy is made and how we might make it better will be available from www.cfbt.com from 7 June.
