Conference Agenda

This is the second part of the book launch to mark the publication of two books edited by Craig Skerritt and published by Bloomsbury in July 2026: Advising on and Making Education Policy: New Perspectives on Past and Present Procedures and Opportunities and Challenges for Policy Advice and Policy Making in Education: Future Possibilities.

Given what Steiner-Khamsi et al. (2020) refer to as the ‘over-production of evidence’, it could be argued that we are in an ‘evidence era’ where language shrouded in talk of research, data, and best practice is used to justify actions (Helgetun and Menter 2022). Policy makers may refer to ‘evidence’, ‘what works’, and ‘evidence-based policy’ as symbolic power to promote policies and communicate powerful messages (Thomas 2023). Consequently, there have been growing calls in the literature for new ways of doing education policy (Brown 2016; Gorard 2018; Lupton and Hayes 2021).

A common (mis)perception that policy making is something that is (only) done by governments exists but as Ozga (2000: 2) has been arguing, ‘policy is to be found everywhere in education’. Policy is not limited ‘to the formal mechanisms of government and official political actors’ (Ozga 2021: 296) and it is shown here that education policy is made in education institutions such as schools too, with staff, students, and parents serving as policy makers. Moreover, intermediary bodies, university-based researchers and teacher educators are also having impact at numerous levels, and the books highlight some of the ways they shape education policy.

In this second part, the authors of another four chapters present on their experiences of and research on policy advice and policy making in education, with specific attention paid to England, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland. Their presentations highlight opportunities, challenges, and new possibilities for advising on and making policies in education. Significantly, they also exemplify teachers, students, parents, and teacher educators as policy makers. The lessons that can be gleaned will likely have wider relevance and applicability, especially considering contemporary education systems are transnationally connected (Grek et al. 2013) and the European and Western education space(s) can seem borderless (McNamara et al. 2022).

First, Taylor Hughson and Loic Menzies draw on cases from Aotearoa New Zealand and England to explore the benefits and drawbacks of polycentricism. Hughson and Menzies argue that polycentric governance does indeed, in line with existing literature, have some shortcomings, but that involving multiple actors in policy design also has potential benefits. They finish by proposing new ideas for how polycentrism could enhance rather than diminish the democratic nature of policy making.

The second presentation comes from Australia. Jacqui Peters advocates for teacher educators to be positioned as policy makers. The presentation demonstrates, through the cases of a group of teacher educators in Initial Teacher Education in an Australian university, what, where, and how teacher educators make policy.

Louise Campbell, Charlaine Simpson and Anna Beck, in the third presentation, from research in the Scottish context, suggest that authentic participation of all stakeholders is a prerequisite for effective and equitable policy development, meaning all voices must be heard, and different perspectives must be considered. A framework is provided to support and interrogate the authentic participation of teachers in the policy networks that operate in, engage with, and influence education systems.

The final presenter is a practising school principal in Ireland, Helen McTighe. McTighe illustrates that principals do not necessarily make institutional policies in isolation but in collaboration with staff and students. With particular attention paid to the inclusion of students, McTighe provides a first-hand account of how they are important policy actors in their post-primary school in Ireland.

Polycentrism has become an increasingly prominent concept in education policy studies. However, current accounts of polycentricity focus almost exclusively on its drawbacks, such as opacity and policy convergence. In this presentation the authors gently critique this negative view of polycentricity by drawing on two other domains — the debate over ‘pluralism’ in political science, and the concept of the advocacy coalition framework. Both of these reference points allow for a more positive case to be made for the involvement of a multiplicity of actors in policy making. The presentation will apply insights from these domains to two case studies: one from Aotearoa New Zealand and one from England, showing how, in both cases, the drawbacks of polycentricity sit alongside potential advantages. Recognising that polycentricity carries both possible upsides and downsides, the presentation concludes with suggestions for what an improved polycentrism might look like, such that its advantages are maintained and its disadvantages are minimised.

Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56(4), 747–765. Hughson, T. A. (2022). Disrupting Aotearoa New Zealand’s curricular consensus: From ‘world-leading’ curriculum to curriculum refresh 2007–2021. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 57, 53–67. Menzies, L. (2024). ‘Populism’ and competing epistemic communities in English educational policy: A response to Craske and Watson. British Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 1576-1593. Savage, G. C., & Dang, T. K. A. (2021). Lost in translation? Polycentricity and the mutation of concepts across fields. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(4), 628–640. Thompson, G., Savage, G. C., & Lingard, B. (2016). Introduction: Think tanks, edu-businesses and education policy: Issues of evidence, expertise and influence. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 1–13.

Attention to policy making in education tends to focus on policy making at the top level. There is less focus on the lived realities of front-line workers, such as teachers, as they engage in policy making. One group of front-line workers are teacher educators who operate in a space – teacher education – which (can) span across policy making spaces. While a small body of research emphasises the key role teacher educators play in policy making, this presentation will strongly advocate the need to position teacher educators as policy makers who have the potential to bridge policy spaces. In this presentation, a teacher educator argues for such advocacy by demonstrating what, where, and how teacher educators operate as policy makers. As such, four case studies focusing on the different (policy) roles teacher educators occupy as policy makers are presented. This presentation highlights the complexity of policy-enactment, which must be embraced to overcome traditional, siloed approaches to policy making.

Alfrey, L., & O'Connor, J. (2020). Critical pedagogy and curriculum transformation in Secondary Health and Physical Education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(3), 288-302. Ball, S.J, Maguire M, and Braun A. (2012). How Schools do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Oxon: Routledge. Connelly, F. M., & Connelly, G. C. (2013). Curriculum policy guidelines: Context, structure and functions. In A. Luke, A. Woods, & K. Weir (eds.), Curriculum Syllabus Design and Equity: A primer and Model (pp.54–73). Routledge. Lambert, K., & Penney, D. (2020). Curriculum interpretation and policy enactment in health and physical education: Researching teacher educators as policy actors. Sport, Education and Society, 25(4), 378–394. Penney, D., & Alfrey, L. (2022). Reading curriculum policy and (re) shaping practices: The possibilities and limits of enactment. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 13(3), 214-222. Scanlon, D., MacPhail, A., & Calderón, A. (2022). A figurational viewpoint of the complexity of policy enactment: An opportunity for agonistic dialogue? The Curriculum Journal, 34, 265-283. Wilkinson, S. D., & Penney, D. (2020). Setting policy and student agency in physical education: Students as policy actors. Sport, Education and Society, 26(3), 267–280.

Effective and equitable policy development requires authentic participation from all stakeholders. For participation to be authentic, all stakeholder voices must be heard, and different perspectives considered. While such a model might enhance transparency and accountability in the policy making process, it does not guarantee genuine participation of all. Participatory models can empower stakeholders and support democratic ideals on the surface, but policy actors who are not often involved in macro-level policy making, such as teachers, are often silenced by pre-existing power structures and persistent cultural norms. This presentation considers how new policy engagement strategies in education might be developed at system level, drawing on Sørensen and Torfing's (2005) model of democratic network governance, Ball's conceptualisation of policy networks (2012) and network ethnography as methodology (Ball, 2016; Hogan, 2016). Through this lens, this presentation offers a model to support and interrogate the authenticity of teacher participation in policy networks. Collectively, ideas around democratic anchorage points, ranges of actors and expertise, hidden and often silenced interactions and relationships coalesce to create a model than can be used to support enhanced forms of engagement in policy making for teachers.

Ball, S.J. (2016). Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities, Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. Hogan, A. (2016). Network ethnography and the cyberflâneur: evolving policy sociology in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(3), 381-398. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195-218.

This presentation comprises a first-hand account of a principal’s experiences of including students in policy making in their school. Using Lundy’s model of child participation as a conceptual framework, ‘policy making’ in this context, in a post-primary school in Ireland, focuses on a context-specific integration of authentic student and teacher collaboration. It involves a trinity of actors in terms of principal, teacher leaders and student leaders collaborating to create a whole-school inclusion policy. The presentation will illustrate how principals do not necessarily make institutional policies in isolation but in collaboration with staff and students. With particular attention paid to the inclusion of students, the presentation will show how this collaboration in policy making can be understood in practice.

Fleming, D. (2015). Student voice: An emerging discourse in Irish education policy. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(2), 223-242. Graham, A., Truscott, J., Simmons, C., Anderson, D., & Thomas, N. (2018). Exploring student participation across different arenas of school life. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1029-1046. Howell, A. (2018). Children’s participation in their education, research and society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(3), 478-485. Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942. Mayes, E. (2020). Student voice in school reform? Desiring simultaneous critique and affirmation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(3), 454-470. Messiou, K., & Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusive Inquiry: Student–teacher dialogue as a means of promoting inclusion in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 670-687. Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., Brown, M., McNamara, G., & O’Brien, S. (2022). Student voice and the school hierarchy: the disconnect between senior leaders and teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 48(5), 606-621.