PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background: COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between such expectations and outcomes, and similar inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish how education researchers, drawing on policy concepts and theories, explain and seek to address this problem. Methods: A qualitative systematic review (2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an immersive and inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how policy theory articles inform it. Results: 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. Our comparison with a review of health equity research highlights distinctive elements in education. First, education equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although some countries and international organisations have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique \'neoliberal\' approaches that dominate policymaking at the expense of \'social justice\'. Third, more studies provide \'bottom-up\' analysis of \'implementation gaps\'. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions: Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar role. Compared to health research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on technical design issues. There is high certainty that current neoliberal policies are failing, but low certainty about how to challenge them successfully.
摘要：
背景：COVID-19对全球教育产生了重大影响，这引发了人们对其不平等效应的担忧，以及重启股票策略的一些动力。然而，政策过程在这种期望和结果之间表现出重大差距，在大流行之前，类似的不平等现象已经持续了几十年。我们的目标是建立教育研究人员，借鉴政策概念和理论，解释并寻求解决这个问题。方法：定性系统评价(2020-21)，为了确定同行评审的关于教育的研究和评论文章，股本，和政策制定，在专家和一般数据库(ERIC，WebofScience,Scopus,Cochrane/社会系统证据)。我们没有采取额外的质量措施。我们使用沉浸式和归纳的方法来识别关键主题。我们使用这些文本来产生一般的叙述，并探索政策理论文章如何提供信息。结果：140篇文本（包括109篇文章；31篇文本滚雪球）为决策提供了重要的参考。仅限于英语，这导致了对GlobalNorth文章的偏见。我们与健康公平研究综述的比较突出了教育中的独特因素。首先,教育公平是模糊和有争议的，没有确定的全球定义或议程(尽管一些国家和国际组织的影响力不成比例)。第二,研究人员批评了以牺牲“社会正义”为代价主导决策的“新自由主义”方法。第三，更多的研究提供了“自下而上”的实施差距分析。第四，更多的研究将不公平与解决边缘化群体的无效决策联系起来。结论：很少有研究使用政策理论来解释政策制定，但是有一个特定于教育的文献也起着类似的作用。与健康研究相比，更多地使用批判性政策分析来反思权力，而较少关注技术设计问题。可以肯定的是，当前的新自由主义政策正在失败，但对如何成功挑战他们的不确定性很低。
