The covert mechanisms of education policy discourse: Unmasking policy insiders’ discourses and discursive strategies in upholding or challenging racism and classism in education

Abstract

Policy insiders across party lines increasingly acknowledge educational “gaps,” yet they talk about this inequity in very different ways. Though some critique disparities through a structural lens, others use deficit discourse, blaming families of color and working-class families for educational outcomes. This study examines how state policy insiders explain educational inequity, shedding light on the complex relationship between language and the maintenance of systemic racism and classism in education. Drawing upon a unique data set of interviews with 50 policy insiders in one state in the United States, we found three main discourses used to explain inequity in education, each of which cited a different cause: 1) structural inequity, 2) perceived deficits of families and communities, and 3) teachers unions and teacher seniority. Policy insiders used often-veiled discursive strategies to advance their discourses. For instance, those that used deficit discourse: 1) asserted that those most negatively impacted by inequity cause inequity; 2) strengthened deficit discourse by blending it with one or both of the other two discourses; and 3) made inequity appear natural through the use of several substrategies, including obscuring the identity of those harmed by inequity. These strategies allowed some policy insiders to strengthen deficit discourse, divert attention from structural issues, and characterize themselves positively while advancing racist and classist ideas. These findings have compelling implications in terms of possibilities for policy changes supportive of educational equity.

A critical policy analysis of Texas’ Closing the Gaps 2015

“…However, dominant narratives usually do not include the interests of minoritized populations and often ignore issues of race. As Bertrand, Perez, and Rogers (2015) point out, "The role and function of policy discourse may appear straightforward, but actually entails mechanisms that are often obscured" (p. 4). Moreover, this commonplace murkiness points to the need for research that sheds light on the ways subtle policy language functions in upholding or challenging educational inequity (Bertrand, et al, 2015).…”

“…As Bertrand, Perez, and Rogers (2015) point out, "The role and function of policy discourse may appear straightforward, but actually entails mechanisms that are often obscured" (p. 4). Moreover, this commonplace murkiness points to the need for research that sheds light on the ways subtle policy language functions in upholding or challenging educational inequity (Bertrand, et al, 2015). It is not that counter narratives offer a perspective that is "truer;" rather, it offers a "more honest account of the world around us" (Atwood andLópez, 2014, p. 1145).…”

Educational Manifest Destiny: Exclusion, Role Allocation, and Functionalization in Reservation Bordertown District Admission Policies

“…Discourse can be defined to include a wide variety of "context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social action" (Reisigl and Wodak 2009, 89), including written text, visual images, signs and symbols, and spoken language. CDA is particularly well suited as a tool to evaluate the potential for policies to engage damage-centered or deficit discourse as a means to perpetuate inequities (Bertrand et al 2015).…”

What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in state Every Student Succeeds Act plans

“…There has been a long history of and an ongoing debate among educational researchers and policy makers about what constitutes an equitable education, what it looks like in practice, and how to achieve it (Jordan, 2010;Verstegen, 2015). While there is a much larger body of literature examining equity from a variety of philosophical, sociological, historical, and economic perspectives (e.g., Anderson, 2007;Bourdieu, 1986;Coleman, 1968;Howe, 1997;Rawls, 1971), most definitions of equity in education literature include equity in access to educational resources (input, such as funding and educators) and equity in learning outcomes (output, often measured by high stakes test scores); and with a lesser extent, equity in process, e.g., pedagogy (Bertrand, Perez, & Rogers, 2015;Bulkley, 2013;Jordan, 2010). For example, Baker and Green (2015) define equity in education as "primarily variations or relative differences in educational resources, processes, and outcomes across children" (p. 231).…”

“…Issues pertaining to equity, or inequity, on the basis of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, able-ness, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status remain central in the United States, including its education system, despite numerous education reform efforts since the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the 54-year-old U.S. federal education law. While the importance of equity, diversity, and inclusion has been underscored in federal and state education policies and reforms in the past five decades (Allbright et al, 2019;Bertrand, Perez, & Rogers, 2015;Thomas & Brady, 2005), a plethora of research (Harris & Leonardo, 2018;Hill, 2017;Howard & Rodriguez-Scheel, 2017;Ladson-Billings, 2006) has documented the persisting and exacerbating disparities in educational opportunity and outcome between more privileged students and students from marginalized and minoritized groups.…”