The Inequitable Processes of Policy Production: A Critical Policy Analysis of School Funding Policy Development

• In Event: Accepting Responsibility for (In)Equity in Education? Critical Policy Analysis Across Contexts

Abstract

This paper provides a snapshot of the findings of a larger project that deploys a critical policy analysis to examine the equity implications of the Review of Funding for Schooling report (Australian Government, 2011) [Gonksi 1.0] for the Australian education system. Broadly speaking, the Review was tasked by the Australian government, via the Term of Reference provided to its panel, with reviewing school funding arrangements in Australia in order to provide recommendations that moved future funding arrangements “towards achieving a funding system for the period beyond 2013 which is transparent, fair, financially sustainable, and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students” (Australian Government, 2011, p. 225). Indeed, the process was the largest review of funding in Australia for over 40 years and captured the Australian public’s imagination like few education policies have in the past. The Review’s recommendations would result in a new model for funding schools that shifted from the traditional focus of funding inputs to focusing on linking funding to improving education outcomes of Australian schools and students. The paper uses data from speeches from key policy stakeholders, policy artifacts, and the final published text to explore what unfolded to be a highly inequitable policy development process.
Our theoretical framework combines Ball’s “policy cycle” heuristic (Ball, 1994; Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992) with Fraser’s social justice theory (2008; 2009). Aligned with Ball’s work, we explore the ways in which the processes of text production shaped the final published report. In doing so, we demonstrate that the Review panel’s makeup and its subsequent processes of consultation with education stakeholders were inequitable because they strongly favored the already powerful non-government school sectors in Australia and in particular the Independent sector who account for just 14% of the total Australian student enrollments. Informed by Fraser's definition of social justice, we focus on the processes of text production to argue that the Review further ensured all Australian schools and students will not be able to participate in education life on equal footing by marginalizing already disadvantaged groups while elevating the voices and interests of the already powerful in Australian education. We then use our findings to offer some suggestions that aim to progress education policymaking towards more equitable development processes in the future.

Authors

• Matthew Sinclair, RMIT University

• Jeffrey S. Brooks, Curtin University