If you think education policy is simply a set of rules written by a government to be followed by schools, you are only seeing half the picture. Recent scholarship challenges the traditional “technical-empiricist” view that policy is a straightforward fix for clear-cut problems. Instead, researchers argue that policy is a messy, creative, and political process that involves complex interpretation, visual artifacts, and a wide cast of characters.

Here is a summary of key frameworks for understanding what policy actually is and how it functions in schools.

1. It’s Not About “Solving” Problems; It’s About Creating Them

One of the most radical shifts in policy analysis is the “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) approach. This framework challenges the common view that governments react to problems that sit outside of them, waiting to be fixed. Instead, the WPR approach argues that policies actually produce the problems they claim to solve.

For example, if a policy proposes “activity regimes” to fix childhood obesity, it implicitly represents the problem as “children’s inactivity.” If it proposes regulating junk food ads, it represents the problem as “unethical advertising”. By studying these “problematizations,” we can uncover the deep-seated assumptions and politics hidden within policy proposals.

2. Policy as Text vs. Policy as Discourse

To understand how policy works, we must look at it through two distinct lenses:

• Policy as Text: Policies are not closed, finished documents; they are representations encoded by authors and decoded by readers. Because policy texts are often the result of compromises and negotiations, they can be messy and unclear. This means schools don’t just implement policy; they interpret and recreate it.
• Policy as Discourse: On a deeper level, policy is a “discourse” that limits what can be said and thought. Discourse exercises power by constructing “truth” and “knowledge,” such as defining what counts as “quality teaching” or “efficient resources”. While we can rewrite a text, it is much harder to step outside a dominant discourse that defines the rules of the game.

3. From Implementation to Enactment

The traditional idea of “implementation” implies a linear process where a policy is handed down and followed. Research suggests we should instead talk about enactment. Enactment recognizes that policies are translated into action within specific school contexts, influenced by their unique histories, resources, and staffing

This process involves a diverse cast of policy actors within schools, including:

• Narrators: usually headteachers who interpret and select meanings to fit the school’s story
• Entrepreneurs: champions of specific policies who recruit others to the cause
• Translators: staff who turn abstract texts into practical plans and materials
• Receivers: junior teachers who often experience policy as something “done to” them, leading to compliance and coping strategies,

4. Policy is Visual

Policy isn’t just found in handbooks; it is plastered on the walls. Schools use visual artifacts—posters, uniform guides, and progress charts—to “call up” notions of how to be a “good student” or a “good teacher”.

These visuals are part of the “fabrication” of the school, reinforcing discourses of achievement and behavior. For instance, posters explaining “How to get an A*” or displays of “Student of the Week” explicitly link compliant behavior with academic success, visually encoding the school’s values.

5. Bridging the Gap: A Hybrid Approach

For a long time, researchers fought over whether to focus on the “macro” level (the state and globalization) or the “micro” level (the classroom). New theoretical frameworks suggest we need to remove policy from its pedestal and look at the “bigger picture” and the “smaller picture” simultaneously.

This “hybrid” approach acknowledges that while global and national pressures (like the knowledge economy) constrain schools, local practitioners still possess agency. They are not robots; they actively negotiate, resist, and reshape policies to fit their reality.

Conclusion

Policy documents are not neutral vehicles for transmitting information; they are ideological texts that construct specific realities and engineer consent [25]. By deconstructing these texts and observing how they are enacted by real people in real schools, we can better understand the complex power dynamics at play in education [26].