LitEVO's Blog
Research and response to trends in teaching language and literature.Archive for Uncategorized
Making Sense of Policy
Or rather, by what means do we attempt to make sense of policy? As I’ve learned from Haley Woodside-Jiron’s chapter on “Making Sense of Public Policy,” not only can policy be incredibly difficult to wheedle through but we must also consider a fairly complex system by which to even begin to do the wheedling. This is something I haven’t considered previously as I’ve never even really tried to look deeply at policy, or really, look at it at all. Scary stuff that all of us should actually attempt to analyze perhaps using a method like Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).
CDA, as stated by Woodside-Jiron, “as a framework for analyzing power and cultural models offers a promising means to better understand the links between policy and those who experience policy firsthand and offers a social lens for change.” (W-J, 2004, p.204). Woodside-Jiron’s CDA lens consists of instructional discourse (text or language, what is possible or not possible in a local context), regulative discourse (creates moral order, controls instructional discourse within an institutional context), and pedagogic device (the relationship between local and institutional contexts, a larger body such as mandates and political climates). When looking at the relationship between instructional discourse and regulative discourse, we can also identify the underlying social network and the influences that either caused the success or failure of the language and discourse practice (W-J, 2004, p. 202).
Woodside-Jiron’s article brought me back to Orson Wells’ 1984 and the idea of “doublespeak.” The article cites Bernstein as calling this doublespeak-type naturalization of terms within a text, “social facts.” For example, when new terms in educational policy are introduced, they can and are often presented as facts. The have a sense of “ofcourseness” (W-J, 2004, p. 185). Woodside-Jiron discusses the phrase, “systematic explicit phonics instruction,” which is repeated multiple times in California’s reading policies, starting in 1995. Next the new/authoritative phrase or word diffuses through education agencies and pop media as it did with the “phonics” phrase. Finally, programs and school practices are mandated based on a relatively new yet seemingly old idea. It is a way of simplifying or “nursing the audience along in your way of thinking” (W-J, 2004, 185).
Also significant and a little scary is Woodside-Jiron’s point about the tracking of policy authors. In her case study of California’s reading policies from 1995-1997, Woodside-Jiron describes the power shift between State Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE). The members of the SBE were hand-picked by the governor instead of being elected officials. This top-down approach gave the SBE authority to push their own synchronized educational agenda. After creating a task force report, they were able to pass a bill about teacher professional development in the area of reading in 1996. Then about a year later, the same authors produced a report on Teacher Reading: A Balanced, Comprehensive Approach to Teaching Reading in Prekindergarten Through Grade 3. In this way the hand-picked committee was able to influence both language and discourse directly.
Another point about looking into authorship describes G. Reid Lyon as an “the authority figure” on “the reading issue” in his testimony to the National Institute of Health (NIH) although his credentials are not specifically stated (W-J, 2004, p. 193). Lyon provided the “institutional discourse” (naming what was possible or impossible in reading instruction) based on his “research.” Turned out that Lyon had a vested interest in the success of the research programs of the NIH because his own salary was payed by the NIH. This made me think of an interview I heard on my way home from work today. It was based on this month’s New Yorker article on Todd Willingham’s execution for the crime of arson and the death of his children (New Yorker article-http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann). There is now evidence; however, that the scientific testimonies of so-called experts were completely bogus bordering on mysticism. Coincidentally, my pre-AP students are currently reading Chekov’s, “The Bet,” and discussing capital punishment versus live imprisonment. I plan on showing them the article tomorrow in preparation for our “Socratic Seminar.”
How dangerous to base the life of a person or the education of many persons on a so-called “expert.” Why are we not fighting to know the credentials of the expert or the science behind an expert’s testimony? How many policies have become policies because of a financial agenda? How many terms have I learned as a teacher that are “social facts,” mysticism, rather than actual scientific evidence. Do I commit this crime myself when I tell my students “research shows…” without actually citing real evidence. I may be committing thoughtcrime to say these things, but I definitely have a new, if not skeptical impression of the finiteness of political policy.
In sum, when analyzing policy for better or worse, look at the text (both the structure and the potentially naturalized language), the experts and authors behind the policy, and the greater social practices or political constructs that surround the policy. Then we can better understand and potentially resist the links behind the practices we use in our classrooms every day.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
