1. Policy development and monitoring for quality and equity in education Quick report

2. Equity and quality Education systems inherently decreasing equity? – Accumulation of disadvantage through various stages of education Quality as excellence? – Meritocracy not background neutral  Two pillars of education policy  Equity as a component of quality  Focusing on added value of schools

3. Who are the disadvantaged? Equity a new focus of policy External incentives for focusing on some groups more than the others – E.g. Roma, students with special needs But some experience multiple disadvantage, some inequity invisible  Focus on plurality and diversity  Focus on flexibility of solutions  Focus on the entire system

4. Data and evidence Very limited systematic data – Data mostly collected through one-time projects and initiatives – Sometimes compilation, but work intensive and may not always be possible – Problems with relevance – Problems with longitudinal analysis – Mostly quantitative data  Make the data bases operational and allow for linkages  Significant investment yes, but essential for long term policy development  Also qualitative data

5. Supply of evidence Organisation of research/interpretation of data – Fragmentation – small projects or focusing on isolated problems and stages in education – Sometimes difficult to do solid research if pressured to deliver neat and simple recommendations abused for window-dressing if pressured to do monitoring Which disciplinary lenses to interpret the data? – Not entirely multidisciplinary, domination of psychologists? How many sociologists? How many economists? How many political scientists/policy analysts? How many organisational scientists? – Too much focus on the micro level (learning, classroom interaction)? OR – Too little focus on the meso (school, faculty) or macro (system) level  Pooling of capacity  Improve multidisciplinarity and focus on all levels  Explore linkages between levels

6. Demand for evidence Evidence based or intelligent policy development? – Evidence informing? How to increase demand? How to communicate this – to the policy makers, to the public? – Communicative vs. coordinative discourse – “Reforms can not be successfully marketed unless they promise more than they can deliver” – Reform as an extraordinary event which “we have to survive” Frog vs. bird perspective – Individual interests vs. collective interests – Short-term vs. long-term perspective  Rethinking overall governance  Promoting and supporting professional accountability  Careful about marketing of reforms  Continuous “fine tuning”, but also beware of reform saturation

7. Policy process – neat version Identification of problems Identification of possible solutions – Discussion of alternatives Formulation of policy – Development of policy instruments and policy linkages Implementation Monitoring and evaluation (good policy learning?)

8. Policy process – not so neat version (1) Identification of problems – Problems = causes – Causes difficult to identify properly, recall traps in policy development – What ends being perceived as a problem also a political matter Identification of possible solutions – Solutions  outcomes – Problem with guaranteeing that the solution would produce the desired outcome (not only because of messy implementation) – Discussion of alternatives not always rational and based on evidence – Garbage can approach to policy making – matching problems and solutions that may not necessarily fit, but which appeared on the policy makers’ horizon at the same time

9. Policy process – not so neat version (2) Formulation of policy – Policy instruments may lack coherence – Policies may not be linked well – neither vertically nor horizontally Implementation – Top down process, many layers, many actors (with vested interests) – Room for interpretation – Room for “mimicking” implementation Monitoring and evaluation – The lower the level, the more difficult to monitor implementation – “the truth is in the classroom” – Beware of window dressing! – Difficult to monitor and evaluate one single policy due to complexity of processes and outcomes, as well as overlapping reforms

10. Final bird’s eye remarks... Yes, SEE is specific – Many commonalities between countries – But also specific problems  Careful when policy learning But, SEE is also not specific – Some challenges related to education as such (imperfect context)  Try to do the possible (while aiming for the optimal)