what is policy analysis in education

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Critical policy analysis in education.

• Kate O'Connor Kate O'Connor La Trobe University
•  and  Sophie Rudolph Sophie Rudolph University of Melbourne
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1831
• Published online: 22 March 2023

Critical policy analysis has emerged as a prominent tradition of research in the field of education. Beginning in the 1980s in response to the failings of more traditional forms of policy analysis, this work typically examines the kinds of discourses and power relations that may be at play through the construction and function of policy. It is critical in orientation and interested in the social, cultural, and political context of policy as well as how analyzing policy may reveal opportunities for social change and reform. In contrast to traditional approaches which take policy problems as given, research in this tradition interrogates how discourse, language, and text set the context for how policy problems and solutions are conceptualized and how and why particular issues come to be framed as objects of concern. Critical policy analysis encompasses a range of different methodological approaches rather than a single method, with the approach taken dependent on the nature of the policy under analysis, the site of its production, the purpose of the research, and the positionality of the researcher. Four particularly prominent and generative approaches to critical policy analysis in educational research include (a) analysis of how policy is formed and operates across local and global contexts; (b) the What’s the Problem Represented to Be? approach; (c) research on networks and mobilities; and (d) research drawing on Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis. Each of these approaches offers insights for understanding problems of inequality and power in education and their origins and reproduction within and in relation to policy.

• critical policy analysis
• policy sociology
• methods of policy analysis

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 29 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

Character limit 500 /500

Doing Critical Policy Analysis in Education Research: An Emerging Paradigm

• First Online: 31 August 2018

Cite this chapter

• Michelle D. Young 2 &
• Sarah Diem 3  

4111 Accesses

19 Citations

2 Altmetric

“The profound shifts taking place in contemporary social life require a shift in our research traditions” (Young, Am Educ Res J, 36:677–714, 1999, p. 705). The study of educational policy through a critical frame allows for a nuanced, holistic understanding of the complexities associated with education policy, from problem finding and framing to policy development, implementation, and evaluation. This chapter focuses on the practice of critical policy analysis within the field of education, including the theoretical and methodological approaches used by critical policy researchers. In addition to providing specific examples of critical policy studies, the chapter provides guidance for novice scholars who are interested in engaging in CPA and identifies a set of recommended readings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction: Critical Approaches to Education Policy Analysis

Using Critical Theory in Educational Research

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Apple, M. (1982). Education and power . London: Routledge.

Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2 , 1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ball, S. J. (1991). Politics and policy making in education . London: Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories, and toolboxes. Discourse, 13 (2), 10–17.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ball, S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43 (3), 255–271.

Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56 , 747–765.

Boyd, W. L. (2000). The “R’s of school reform” and the politics of reforming or replacing public schools. Journal of Educational Change, 1 (3), 225–252.

Brewer, C. A. (2014). Historicizing in critical policy analysis: The production of cultural histories and microhistories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27 (3), 273–288.

Brinkman, S. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life: Working with everyday life materials . London: SAGE.

Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2015). Qualitative research and educational leadership: Essential dynamics to consider when designing and conducting studies. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (7), 798–806.

Brown, R. N., Carducci, R., & Kuby, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Disrupting qualitative inquiry: Possibilities and tensions in educational research . New York: Peter Lang.

Cannella, G. S., Pérez, M. S., & Pasque, P. A. (Eds.). (2015). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures . New York: Taylor & Francis.

Caputo, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida . New York: Fordham University Press.

Carpenter, B. W., Diem, S., & Young, M. D. (2014). The influence of values and policy vocabularies on understandings of leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27 (9), 1110–1133.

deLeon, P., & Vogenback, D. M. (2007). The policy sciences at a crossroads. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 3–14). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies . Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Diem, S. (2012). The relationship between policy design, context, and implementation in integration plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20 (23), 1–39.

Diem, S. (2017). A critical policy analysis of the politics, design, and implementation of student assignment policies. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 43–62). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Diem, S., & Young, M. D. (2015). Considering critical turns in research on educational policy. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (7), 838–850.

Diem, S., Young, M. D., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27 (9), 1068–1090.

Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No Child Left Behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24 (4), 1–11.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 121–138). London: SAGE.

Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice . London: George Allen & Unwin.

Fernández, E., & López, G. R. (2017). When parents behave badly: A critical policy analysis of parent involvement in schools. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 111–130). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism . Albany: SUNY Press.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park: Sage.

Gulson, K., Clarke, M., & Petersen, E. B. (2015). Introduction: Theory, policy, methodology. In K. Gulson, M. Clarke, & E. B. Petersen (Eds.), Education policy and contemporary theory: Implications for research (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.

Hajer, M. A. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Honan, E. (2015). Thinking rhizomatically: Using Deleuze in education policy contexts. In K. N. Gulson, M. Clarke, & E. B. Peterson (Eds.), Education policy and contemporary theory (pp. 208–218). New York: Routledge.

Honig, M. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in educational policy implementation: Confronting complexity . New York: State University of New York Press.

Lather, P. (2001). Validity as an incitement to discourse: Qualitative research and the crisis of legitimation. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 241–250). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23 , 767–795.

Lugg, C. A., & Murphy, J. P. (2014). Thinking whimsically: Queering the study of educational policy-making and politics. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27 (9), 1183–1204.

Marshall, C. (1997). Dismantling and reconstructing policy analysis. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and secondary schooling (pp. 1–39). London: The Falmer Press.

Marshall, C., & Young, M. D. (2013). Policy inroads undermining women in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16 (2), 205–219.

McDonnell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective in education policy analysis. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57–70). New York: Routledge.

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–31). London: SAGE.

Milani, M., & Winton, S. (2017). Ontario’s fourth ‘R’: A critical democratic analysis of Ontario’s fund-‘R’aising policy. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 193–214). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Morrison, D., Annamma, S. A., & Jackson, D. D. (2017). Critical race spatial analysis: Mapping to understand and address educational inequity . Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Nagel, S. S. (1984). Contemporary public policy analysis . Birmingham: The University of Alabama Press.

O’Malley, M. P., & Long, T. A. (2017). Public educational policy as performance: A queer analysis. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 63–82). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Pillow, W. (1997). Decentering silences/troubling irony: Teen pregnancy’s challenge to policy analysis. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and secondary schooling (pp. 134–152). London: Falmer Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1997). A changing terrain of knowledge and power: A social epistemology of educational research. Educational Researcher, 26 (9), 18–29.

Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.). (2000). Educational knowledge: Changing relationships between the state, civil society, and the educational community . Albany: SUNY Press.

Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 9 , 297–316.

Stanfield, J. (1993). Epistemological considerations. In J. Stanfield & R. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 16–36). Newbury Park: Sage.

Ulmer, J. (2016). Diffraction as a method of critical policy analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48 (13), 1381–1394.

Welton, A. D., Harris, T. O., Altamirano, K., & Williams, T. (2017). The politics of student voice: Conceptualizing a model for critical analysis. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 83–110). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2015). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Youdell, D. (2015). Assemblage theory and education policy sociology. In K. N. Gulson, M. Clarke, & E. B. Peterson (Eds.), Education policy and contemporary theory (pp. 110–121). New York: Routledge.

Young, M. D. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36 , 677–714.

Young, M. D. (2003). The leadership crisis: Gender and the shortage of school administrators. In M. D. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 265–298). Albany: SUNY Press.

Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2014). Putting critical theoretical perspectives to work in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27 (9), 1063–1067.

Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Introduction to critical policy analysis. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 1–13). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Young, M. D., & Reynolds, A. L. (2017). Critically examining policy workers and policy work within state boards of education. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 19–42). Gewerbestraße, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Leadership and Foundations, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Michelle D. Young

Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle D. Young .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Chad R. Lochmiller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Young, M.D., Diem, S. (2018). Doing Critical Policy Analysis in Education Research: An Emerging Paradigm. In: Lochmiller, C. (eds) Complementary Research Methods for Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_5

Published : 31 August 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-93538-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-93539-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What Is an Education Policy Analyst?

Education policy analysts study educational systems to transform them. Through careful analysis of educational outcomes, laws, rules, and regulations, education policy analysts explore answers to questions such as: What legislative and institutional programs serve students? What critical programs need increased funding? How can lawmakers transform school policies and practices to meet the aims of diversity, justice, and freedom?

Transforming education policy starts with individuals willing to change their own thoughts and actions. “All of us in the academy and in the culture as a whole are called to renew our minds if we are to transform educational institutions — and society — so that the way we live, teach, and work can reflect our joy in cultural diversity, our passion for justice, and our love of freedom,” bell hooks wrote in Teaching to Transgress . 

Those interested in effecting change in schools as education policy analysts should understand the role and how to become one, such as through an advanced education .  

US Education Policy by the Numbers 

Education policy affects huge swaths of the US population. In 2020, 49.4 million public school students were enrolled in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Around 19.4 million students enrolled in college at least part time, and around 3.7 million teachers taught in public or private pre-K through 12th grade schools that same year.

To support so many students, the US enacts policy decisions at the local, state, and national levels. According to 2022 reports from the Education Data Initiative:

• The US contributes 11.6 percent of all public funding toward education.
• K-12 schools spend $666.9 billion annually on education, equating to $13,185 per student.
• Public postsecondary schools spend, on average, $28,977 per student annually.

Funding for education translates to educational legislation, bringing new policies affecting schools across the nation. The Education Commission of the States staff tracked more than 9,500 bills introduced in state legislatures pertaining to the US in 2021, according to EdNote. Of these bills, more than 1,770 were either enacted or vetoed.

Demand for Education Policy Analysts

With education policy constantly shifting, the need is great for competent education policy analysts to study and report on school systems, programs, infrastructure, curriculum, and processes. 

Education policy analysts shape education. They uncover, track, research, and report on the key issues in America’s public schools. Moreover, they use data and compelling argumentation to recommend specific policies and platforms while considering how education policies affect stakeholders: students, teachers, parents and guardians, administrators, and even entire communities. 

Without education policy analysts, it would be impossible to reliably gauge the impact of a new education policy. 

• Do new math and science curricula improve student outcomes? 
• Does a more comprehensive free lunch program help to lower student truancy and attrition? 
• Do teachers feel supported by a new administrative change?

Education policy analysts study questions like these and more, providing crucial insight to lawmakers and community members affected by educational changes. 

Responsibilities of an Education Policy Analyst  

In general, policy analysts work to influence political decisions. The day-to-day work of education policy analysts can include interventions at any point in the education policy life cycle. Education policy analyst work includes:

• Researching policy data related to educational trends or specific education policies
• Analyzing potential policies and making recommendations about whether to implement or reject proposed policies related to education
• Evaluating the outcomes of existing education policies
• Sharing information with lawmakers, government officials, and the public

More specifically, education policy analytics can be broken down into the following activities:

• Collecting and analyzing information (e.g., survey data collected from standardized test results and students, parents, and stakeholders)
• Conducting cost-benefit analyses of proposed education policy legislation
• Evaluating how education policies affect the public
• Forecasting political, economic, and social trends that may affect educational systems
• Monitoring policy activities related to higher education at the local, state, and federal levels
• Reporting findings by publishing analytical briefs or giving presentations to important stakeholders
• Tracking events, policy decisions, and trends with implications for the education landscape
• Using qualitative and quantitative sources and methodologies to collect data and conduct research

Where Do Education Policy Analysts Work?

Given their broad skill sets in research, data collection and analysis, legal analysis, education theory, and communication, education policy analysts are well suited to work in many different organizations within the educational system:

• Government agencies. Education policy analysts may work directly for a local, state, or federal government education agency. At the federal level, education policy analysts work for the US Department of Education. At the local level, policy analysts may work on school boards or in school district administration. 
• Schools and school boards. School districts, colleges, and universities may employ education policy analysts to understand how their schools are running and what support they need. 
• Nonprofits. Education nonprofit organizations can support schools with limited funding and resources. The education policy analysts who work for these organizations may push for policy changes to address opportunity gaps, for example.
• Policy institutes. Some policy institutes specialize in education reform. To make their case to lawmakers, think tanks need education policy analysts to study specific trends in education and make policy recommendations. 

Educational Requirements for an Education Policy Analyst

The responsibilities of an education policy analyst are technical and wide-ranging, so the right education is key. Professionals in this role must be comfortable working with data. They must also be experts in communicating their findings to diverse, nonexpert audiences. Job listings for education policy analysts frequently solicit candidates with experience working in education (as researchers, teachers, or administrators) and policy analysis. Typical educational pathways to becoming an education policy analyst include:

• Earning at least a bachelor’s degree plus two or more years of working in a relevant field (in education, nonprofit work, legislation, or policy analysis)
• Earning a graduate degree in a specialized field related to education policy such as public policy, public affairs, public administration, curriculum design, economics, or statistics

Job Outlook and Salary for an Education Policy Analyst  

While the US Bureau of Labor Statistics does not collect specific information on the job outlook and salary for an education policy analyst, Payscale reports that the average education policy analyst salary in July 2022 was $61,425 per year. The total compensation for this role ranged from $45,000 to $88,000 per year. 

Salary and total compensation for education policy analysts may vary widely based on a person’s geographic location and work setting. (For example, government agencies may have a lower limit to how much they are able to pay education policy analysts compared with a policy institute.)

Cultivate Diversity and Inclusion With a Career in Education 

Education policy is complex and continually changing. To push for equity and accessibility in education, schools need education policy analysts to alert leaders to important trends and to evaluate how well policies are (or aren’t) working for students. 

Do you enjoy working with data and care about promoting diversity and inclusion in education? Consider the online MEd in Education Policy and Leadership at American University, a program rooted in social justice and anti-racism whose curriculum emphasizes inclusion and equity in education. Explore AU’s program and start your path towards a career in education policy. 

The Problem of Bias in US History Textbooks and Curriculum

Teaching Anti-Racism in the Classroom: Strategies for Educators

Anti-Racism in the Classroom: Tips and Resources for Teaching About Racism

Chegg CareerMatch, “Education Policy Analyst Salary and Career Advice”

Education Data Initiative, “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics”

Ed Note, “Top 2021 Education Legislative Trends”

Indeed, “How to Become Policy Analyst in 5 Steps (Plus Job Duties)”

National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Back-to-School Statistics”

Payscale, Education Policy Analyst Salary

Routledge, Teaching to Transgress by bell hooks

Request Information

AU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our  privacy policy .

Education Policy and Analysis

The Master’s in Education (Ed.M.) prepares students with the skills needed to change the world through education. HGSE’s Ed.M. centers on three pillars of study: Foundations, which focus on core skills and knowledge; Programs, which focus on specific areas of practice; and Concentrations, which are opportunities to deepen contextual knowledge. Together, these pillars empower students to create transformative learning at every level and in every role. The Education Policy and Analysis (EPA) Program prepares students to lead policy development, analysis, and change in organizations and settings across the U.S. and around the world. Students learn how to scale effective practices and leverage policy in order to expand their reach.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Formulating effective policies

Methods of analysis.

• Complexities of policy analysis
• Outcomes of policy analysis

policy analysis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Table Of Contents

policy analysis , evaluation and study of the formulation, adoption, and implementation of a principle or course of action intended to ameliorate economic, social, or other public issues. Policy analysis is concerned primarily with policy alternatives that are expected to produce novel solutions. Policy analysis requires careful systematic and empirical study.

The complexities of policy analysis have contributed to the development and growth of policy science, which applies a variety of theories and tools from the hard sciences (e.g., biology and chemistry ), social sciences (e.g., sociology , psychology , and anthropology ), and humanities (e.g., history and philosophy) in an effort to better understand aspects of human society, its problems, and the solutions to those problems. Policy analysis is important in modern complex societies, which typically have vast numbers of public policies and sophisticated and often interconnected challenges, such that public policies have tremendous social, economic, and political implications . Moreover, public policy is a dynamic process, operating under changing social, political, and economic conditions. Policy analysis helps public officials understand how social, economic, and political conditions change and how public policies must evolve in order to meet the changing needs of a changing society.

Policy analysis plays an important role in helping to define and outline the goals of a proposed policy and in identifying similarities and differences in expected outcomes and estimated costs with competing alternative policies. Many public policies are designed to solve both current and future problems, and thus policy analysis attempts to forecast future needs based on past and present conditions. Policy outcomes can be found in a variety of different forms—tangible outputs and less-tangible outputs for which the impacts are more difficult to measure. In many cases, it is difficult to determine if the policy itself resulted in desired change or if other exogenous or external factors were the most direct cause. Nevertheless, it is important to determine if policy is responsible for the desired change; otherwise, there would be no need for the policy. Policy analysts often use theoretically grounded statistical models to determine if the policy will have the desired impact. In a final stage of policy analysis, analysts collate the information gathered to determine which policy alternative will best meet present and future needs.

There are two types of empirical analysis: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. Qualitative studies involve a variety of different tools. For example, some qualitative studies involve archival analysis, studying policy history and determining what has been done in the past to solve certain policy problems. Qualitative studies might also involve personal interviews, asking individuals to describe in words a variety of issues surrounding the policy process—from policy agendas to formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Interviews with policy makers and with the clientele being served by a particular policy may provide valuable information about policy goals, processes, and outcomes.

Archival analysis is particularly important in public policy analysis. Through studies of policy history, policy analysts can learn important lessons from earlier times and apply those lessons to current or future problems and goals. A new policy goal may sound highly innovative and cost-effective and promise to meet worthy goals, but archival research may illustrate the hidden costs and pitfalls that might result in policy failure.

Personal interviews are also an important method of improving public policy. Public policy is formulated and implemented by professionals working in government, oftentimes for an entire career. Through their individual experiences in particular policy areas, the experiences of elected and appointed officials become key policy artifacts . When these individuals leave government service, their experience and wisdom are often lost. One way to prevent this is to document the informal lessons or experiences of senior elected and appointed officials. Personal interviews are perhaps the most effective method of accomplishing this goal, largely because a personal interview technique will allow for a high degree of flexibility in information collection.

Quantitative studies are of tremendous value to policy analysts in their continual efforts to address important policy issues. Cost-benefit analysis is one of the most common forms of quantitative policy analysis. It is primarily concerned with comparing the amount of expected or known benefits produced from a particular policy choice with the expected or known costs associated with that choice. Of the two elements of the equation, the determination of costs is often more easily computed. Costs are most often measured in monetary terms; labour and supplies are easily converted to dollar costs. While there are always hidden costs associated with any policy decision, those costs can be estimated given previous experiences in prior public policy endeavours. Opportunity costs—the costs associated with choosing a particular policy over an alternative policy—can also be estimated.

Benefit calculation is oftentimes a difficult endeavour. In order to complete the cost-benefit calculation, benefits must be assigned a numeric value, and most frequently the numeric value is made in monetary terms. Yet, most aspects of public policy benefit are not easily measured in monetary terms. Individual clientele of a policy and individual officials fulfilling policy goals have a tremendous influence on the quality of a policy outcome or output, but the calculation of a benefit is often measured and aggregated in a manner that fails to capture those nuances .

Despite limitations in estimation, benefits must be measured in monetary or unit output terms for a cost-benefit calculation to proceed. Policy makers may determine benefit estimates through survey research by asking clientele of a policy to indicate how the public policy has impacted their lives. Policy makers also view the benefit in terms of the output of a policy—that is, the number of individuals who were served. In higher education policy, for instance, policy makers may conduct surveys of alumni to determine the impact of their higher education experience on their salary level and to also inquire about their positive and negative experiences at the university or college. Additionally, policy makers may conduct a head count of the number of student credit hours generated and the number of university or college graduates to measure policy output and equate it to a benefit.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Educ Health Promot
• PMC10127502

Elements of the educational policy model in schools (a systematic review)

Azar sarghini.

1 Department of Educational Administration, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran

Behnam Talebi

Omidali hoseinzade.

2 Department of Educational Administration, Islamic Azad University, Shabstar Branch, Shabestsr, Iran

Educational policymaking is a kind of public policy that is done in order to achieve the goals of the educational system in fields areas such as education and students' health. The purpose of this study was to determine the components of educational policymaking model in education. The method of the present study is systematic review. This is done using the SPIDER framework. The statistical population of the study included all related Persian and English articles published in the years 2010–2021 consisting of 98 articles that are indexed in ScienceDirect, Sage, Springer, Wiley, Eric, and PMC English language databases and SID, Irandoc, and Magiran Persian language databases. The research sample included 52 articles selected in the article screening stage. The number of Persian language references was 12 and English language references was 40. Sterberg thematic analysis was used for coding the selected texts of articles. Results of coding the selected texts of the articles showed that the components of the educational policymaking model are included in 11 themes: quiddity of policy and public policy, educational policy's necessity, quiddity of educational policy, process of educational policy, consequences, factors, obstacles, stakeholders, evaluation criteria, and change in educational policies. Paying attention to all the dimensions and factors interacting in educational policy can lead to better education and improve the quality of education in all dimensions, especially in the field of health education.

Policy analysis can help clarify the issue, select the available policy, the effectiveness, and efficiency of a policy, and ultimately can help in the selection and preference of policymakers and the populace.[ 1 ] In fact, policymaking is a political activity that reconciles the opposing dialectics of order and disorder.[ 2 ] Policymaking involves political programs aimed at achieving social goals. In fact, policymaking reflects the activities and intentions of the government.[ 3 ] Public policy is a goal-oriented process that tries to identify the general problem and put it on the policy agenda to achieve the desired goal by applying continuous monitoring and evaluation operations.[ 4 ] Policymaking has three characteristics, which are being multidisciplinary, seeking to solve problems, and being normative.[ 1 ] The policymaking process is a set of rational actions that have been performed in a process consisting of necessarily political actions[ 5 ] and, in general, it has four main stages of problem definition, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation.[ 1 ] In discussing the position of policy, in the first stage, an unambiguous definition should be provided for each policy element and policymaking institution.[ 4 ] Education is not only one of the most important social institutions, but also has a significant impact on the performance and quality of work of other organs and sectors of any society.[ 6 ] Creating new capacities and producing knowledge and information and communication technologies in the global economy require education to have a system of planning, development, evaluation, and accreditation in order to continuously improve quality.[ 7 ] On the other hand, the centralized management of education in the country and the lack of proper participation of principals, staff, parents, and students in decisions related to how the school is run have overshadowed the country's education system for years and reduced effectiveness in schools.[ 8 ] In today's knowledge-based societies, quality and equal education is one of the fundamental rights of citizens and one of the basic duties of the modern government. Governments try to respond to this demand and task through an educational policymaking process. A look at the performance of governments in Iran indicates the weakness and inefficiency of educational policy. Accordingly, policymaking in education is considered one of the most vital areas of public policymaking by the governments.[ 9 ] Principles of policymaking in education are formed according to endogenous development in a holistic model of policymaking.[ 10 ] Chichekchi,[ 11 ] in a study on reform policy, law, and problems in education policy in Turkey, concluded that educational policy in the republican era (including the contemporary era) is a priority and occurs with modern techniques. A study by Adel Kiss in Romania also reported new challenges and opportunities for national education policy.[ 12 ] Darvishi, while reporting the existing shortcomings of the policymaking system, has identified and prioritized the factors affecting the shortcomings of the regional development policymaking system in Iran.[ 13 ] Ghaedi reviewed the problems of scientific policy in the country. These problems are considered in six stages of the policy process, including problem definition, ordering, formation and preparation, legitimacy, implementation, and evaluation.[ 14 ] Heidari dealt with the need to make the policymaking process more effective in education.[ 9 ] Foruzandeh realized the need for the capacity of politics in public administration.[ 15 ] Akbari studied the proposed systematic model for policymaking in education.[ 16 ] Talebi et al .[ 17 ] examined and presented a perceptual model of policymaking in Iranian education. Research in the field of providing an appropriate model of educational policymaking in Iran has not been able to provide a comprehensive model based on regular field research or provide the necessary comprehensiveness of the literature, and there is a huge information gap in this issue. Focusing on the existing issues of education[ 8 ] and the need to address optimal policymaking in government systems such as public education,[ 5 ] this study seeks to ask whether the components of the educational policy model in education can be categorized by a systematic review of the existing research and theoretical literature?

Materials and Methods

The method of this research was a systematic review of studies on policymaking in education, and education and health promotion in the educational system. In the present study, the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework was used to develop the components of the educational policymaking model, with emphasis on education and health promotion in schools. Selecting documents in this method is an important step.. In conducting this study, the author referred to Sage, PMC, Springer, Wiley, Eric, and ScienceDirect English language databases and SID, Irandoc, and Magiran Persian language databases. Key search words included policy, educational policy, health education policy, educational policy making. Articles published in Persian and English languages from 2010 to 2021 were included in the study. Criterion for including the analyzed articles was that they provide a description and analysis of policymaking and its approaches in the field of education. The purpose of this study was not to provide a comprehensive review of all sources, but the authors sought to provide a coherent picture of the studies conducted. With this explanation, the main purpose of this research is to present the components of the policymaking model in education in the research done and to combine and analyze the results and formulate these components in a conceptual framework. In the selection of articles, out of 98 studies identified at the beginning of the work, 46 studies were omitted based on title or abstract and 52 full-text articles were selected as a statistical population for further review as well as a sample. The number of Persian language references is 12 and English language references is 40. Thematic analysis of Sterberg was used for analyzing the texts of the articles, and codes and themes are extracted and categorized. Sterberg's method consists of five steps: 1. data management, 2. conflict with data, 3. data mapping, 4. development of analysis, and 5. typology.[ 18 ] We went through these steps. In this research, ethical considerations including observing the fidelity and documenting the material quoted from other authors have been considered. As this article is a review, ethical considerations include fidelity in the use of citations by previous authors, which has been of interest to scholars. The research steps are summarized in Figure 1 .

Steps in selecting articles for research

This article is extracted from the research of a doctoral dissertation with ethical code SSRI.REC.2106-1067, and ethical considerations include observance of fiduciary duty and documentation quoted from other authors.

Table 1 shows the themes and codes extracted from the studied research references, which are presented in 74 codes and 11 categories. Each of the codes has been compiled from one or more research references based on the inference from the studied texts and according to its meaning in the form of concepts.

Codes and themes describing the elements of the educational policy model

For example, the code “Policy entry into the education system” including “Politics has significantly entered the terminology and decision-making performance in education” has been derived from Chichekchi.[ 11 ]

The code “learning political leadership” is derived from Carter's article and the phrase “Political leaders are everywhere, but it is not a theory-based model specifically designed for political leaders.[ 22 ]

The code “For the progress and modernization of society” including “Education policy gives credence to the development and modernization of society” has been inferred from Ekpiken.[ 19 ]

“Educational equality” code including “Education for all, creating equality through appropriate education for students to learn, effectively provide the government to run schools” has been derived from Benson.[ 30 ]

The “Teacher” code including “Teachers' experience and expertise may influence participation in the policy process” has been taken from Derrington.[ 40 ]

The code “students” is derived from Adam and the phrase “Students a wide range of actors try to create policy and challenges against it in a constructed way”.[ 43 ]

The code of non-involvement of teachers in policymaking, including “Barriers to policy making that teachers are not used in political opportunities, especially in government leadership” has been derived from Annalee.[ 35 ]

The code “Quality education” including “To achieve quality education, guidelines for fostering sustainable policies” has been inferred from Atenas.[ 20 ]

The code “Policy sharing” including “Policy dialogues are dialogues of interest, which are policy-makers and stakeholders who gather across disciplines to discuss issues of mutual interest” has been inferred from Sienkiewicz et al .[ 21 ]

The code “Strategic school unity” including “Schools are one of the most strategic places” has been inferred from Saito et al .[ 34 ]

The code “Lack of sight” including “Institutionalized monitoring systems prevent the implementation of national school health policy” has been inferred from Reeve et al .[ 39 ]

Semantic commonalities of the codes have been used to extract the themes based on the codes and the basic concepts. Accordingly, codes that had semantic commonality and explained a single structure were classified under a theme. Table 1 shows the extracted themes.

The results of this systematic review study, which was conducted using the SPIDER framework, showed that the educational policy model in schools emphasizing health education could be classified into 11 categoriesIn other words, the educational policy model with emphasis on health education in schools includes the following elements: the nature of politics and policymaking, necessity for educational policy, the nature of educational policy, policymaking process, consequences of educational policy, factors influencing policy, barriers of educational policy, stakeholders and participants, evaluation criteria, and changing educational policies.

The categories from 1 to 11, respectively, justify the nature of the policy or public policy. The codes of state and public policy, value of public policy, effectiveness of public policy participation in democracy, pluralism in policymaking, negotiation to resolve conflict, citizen-centric, and democratic nature of public policy process explain this categorization. Given that each of these codes in some way refers to the nature and characteristics of policy and public policy, the first category has been formed. Regarding the nature of politics and public policy, the results of this study are consistent with the studies of Hesby,[ 26 ] Atenas,[ 20 ] and Ekpiken,[ 19 ] which showed that politics is a governmental and valuable matter. In order to form the necessity of educational policy, the direct code that explains this category is only one code that has been mentioned in four research articles. Due to the high importance of this code based on the need for educational policy, this code is classified as a separate theme. Concurrent research on the need for educational policy has been presented in the studies of Atenas,[ 20 ] Colwell,[ 29 ] and Chichekchi,[ 11 ] which have emphasized the necessity for educational policy. The next theme contains codes that explain the nature of educational policy. Codes of application of social sciences, formality of educational policy, in line with the survival of society and its progress and modernization, explain this theme. Given that each of these codes has somehow referred to the nature of educational policy, the third category has been formed. Also, the results of this study regarding the nature of educational policy that educational policy is the application of social sciences and a formal intention for the survival of society are consistent with the studies of Ebro[ 32 ] and Kiki.[ 31 ] The next theme deals with educational policy and its nature. Accordingly, educational policy-making is a fluid, participatory, solution-oriented, goal-oriented, multifaceted and information-based process. Educational policy is formed according to public opinion within the organization and its main motivation is the democratization of society. This process is faced with high ambiguity and low certainty in educational decisions, which is formed by a logical process and is not explicitly distinguishable from education. The studies of Kelsey,[ 28 ] Conaway,[ 36 ] and Yemini[ 33 ] are remarkable in the nature of educational and research policies that are consistent with the results of this research. Most of the researchers who initiated the policymaking process referred to policymaking as an independent step or in addition to setting the agenda to policymaking. Researchers also see policy evaluation as a separate part of the policymaking process, while some researchers have not mentioned the separate nature of this stage. The results related to the educational policymaking process are also consistent with the results of research by Kelsey.[ 28 ] The next theme according to the research reports of quality education, educational efficiency, accumulation of human, social, and cultural capital, and promotion of educational justice is the key consequences of educational policy. Regarding the consequences of educational policy, the results of Heidari,[ 9 ] Atenas,[ 20 ] and Talebi et al .[ 17 ] are consistent with the results of the present study. The most important factors influencing educational policymaking are the following: ideology, economics, international relations, domestic political relations, government educational measures, civic groups, social networks, and the prevailing cultural discourse. Various researchers have pointed to the existence of barriers in the areas of administration, resources, problems arising from the nature of policy, as well as the policymaking process, which include the following: lack of teachers' participation in policymaking, limited understanding of the educational policy process, insufficient training on policymaking, high administrative focus, lack of funding, and specific problems of public policy design. The effective factors and obstacles in educational policymaking as reported by Benson,[ 30 ] Annalee,[ 35 ] Saito et al .,[ 34 ] and Meemar[ 25 ] are consistent with the results of the present study. Researchers have pointed to the role of various actors at the macro and micro levels of the education system. Stakeholders such as the government, macro-level political actors, managers, and local government agencies in the education system, as well as managers, parents, students, and teachers at the micro-level are considered. Also, experts as one of the policy stakeholders can have a high participatory role at all three levels. Participants in educational policy have also been considered in various studies. Yemini[ 42 ] refers to the role of the national government and the local branches of government. Stosich & Bae[ 48 ] has mentioned the role of students, and Khelifi[ 45 ] has mentioned the role of specialists. The results of this research are in line with the results of Adam,[ 43 ] Heidari,[ 9 ] and Talebi et al .[ 17 ] Researchers reported quality, innovation, performance, compatibility of specific policy components, coordination between different educational policies, achievement of goals (effectiveness), key frameworks, evidence, and media response as the criteria for evaluating educational policy. Policy evaluation criteria are also consistent with the results of studies by Adam[ 43 ] and Sue.[ 38 ] According to the extracted codes, policy changes can be due to changes in societies, pressures from social networks, expectations from social discourses, teachers' expectations, or from policy implementation challenges that are constantly being considered. Policy change is also consistent with the reports of Chichakchi[ 11 ] and Berger.[ 46 , 51 ]

Conclusions

According to the results of the present study, elements of educational policy in education can be categorized in the context of interactive relationships between the nature of policy and public policynecessity for educational policy, nature of educational policy, nature and process of educational policy, consequences of educational policy, factors affecting educational policy, barriers of educational policy, stakeholders, participants in educational policy, educational policy evaluation criteria can be categorized. The results of this review study have been separately considered and reported in previous studies. The main limitation of this research is the systematic review of previous studies and the lack of use of other data collection tools. Consistent with the results of the present study, it is suggested to policymakers in education to pay attention to all the elements of the policy model in policymaking and to consider the share of each in policymaking. It is also suggested to future researchers that the findings of this study be examined through a qualitative study based on interviews with experts.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This article is the result of researching a doctoral dissertation at the Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. The authors consider it necessary to express their sincere gratitude to the officials of the Islamic Azad University of Tabriz, who helped them to carry out the study and improve the quality of this research.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a framework for the analysis of educational policies.

International Journal of Educational Management

ISSN : 0951-354X

Article publication date: 1 December 1995

Responding to the needs of current education developments, presents a comprehensive framework specifically for the analysis of educational policies and uses different policy cases in Hong Kong to illustrate how it can be applied effectively. The framework consists of four frames and each suggests the major considerations that need to be focused on in analysing the characteristics of educational policy. The first frame analyses the background and underlying principles related to the development of educational policies. The second frame examines the policy formulation process. The third frame investigates the implementation process and the related gaps between implementation and planning. The last frame focuses on the effects of policies. By using these four frames, the policy analysts might have a more comprehensive perspective for critically reviewing current educational policies. The framework can contribute to the ongoing discussion and development of educational policies, not only in Hong Kong, but also in an international context.

• Decision making

Cheong Cheng, Y. and Ming Cheung, W. (1995), "A framework for the analysis of educational policies", International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549510147538

Copyright © 1995, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

#LeadingSDG4 | Education2030

Using Evidence in Situational Analysis to Move Policies Forward: Insights from the Inaugural SDG4-Education 2030 High-Level Steering Committee (HLSC) Functional Area 1 (FA1) Learning Series

The inaugural FA1 Learning Series took place on 11 July 2024. The webinar ,“ Using Evidence in a Situational Analysis to Move Policies Forward ,” was jointly organized by UNESCO (Section of Education Policy and the International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP )) as part of the SDG4 - Education 2030 High-Level Steering Committee Functional Area 1 Learning Series and IIEP’s Strategic Debates .   

Panelists :  

• Martín Benavides, Director, IIEP-UNESCO .  
• Diane Coury, Programme Specialist, IIEP-UNESCO . Data for ESA: Sources and challenges .
• Soumaya Maghnouj , Policy Analyst , Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD . Using PISA evidence to inform education policy .
• Alpha Bah, Head of EMIS and ICT , Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education, The Gambia . Good data for policies and policies for EMIS .
• Gwang-Chol Chang, Chief of Section of Education Policy, UNESCO . What is the FA1 Learning Series and what is yet to come?

Data is key to conducting an effective situational analysis

The webinar was kicked off by Martín Benavides, Director of IIEP, who highlighted the critical role of conducting evidence-based situational analyses in shaping effective educational policies .   

“ Having a strong foundation is key in designing policy strategies ,” emphasized Diane Coury, who presented Education Sector Analysis (ESA) as a crucial tool for diagnosing the entire education sector, from early childhood education to higher education . While reliable data is essential for a factual, neutral and robust ESA, challenges related to the centralization of data sources and the compatibility of data for policy use often hinder the process .  

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was showcased by Soumaya Maghnouj . PISA assesses 15-year-old students in math, reading, science and other innovative domains and helps countries in benchmarking their education systems. Despite its added value in helping countries to monitor and track their education policies and outcomes nationally , as well as vis - à - vis other countries, challenges persist . These include a lack of micro-level or detailed data on various aspects of education and a disconnect between the availability of data and its use by policymakers. The need for involving policymakers from the beginning of the cycle of data and evidence production was emphasized because “ mobilizing policymakers from the very beginning allows data to answer your policy question .”  

A country experience in using data for conducting a situation analysis was shared by Alpha Bah from The Gambia, where data collection and processing have influenced several aspects of education policies since 1998. “ The relationship between good data and good policy is like a chicken and egg analogy ,” expressed Mr Bah , explaining that good data is needed for better policies, and better policies are needed for good data. He highlighted the importance of adopting a bottom-up approach and showcased how the country uses small-scale data to produce ‘School Report Cards’ for schools and ‘ Community Report Cards ’ for parent - teacher associations . As a bottom-up approach, this practice allows the data to be accessible to all, strengthening data use and building accountability.  

Integrating diverse data sources into an EMIS policy

Integrating data from various sources emerged as a challenge expressed by all speakers because data are often not centralized at the national level, leading to different institutions collecting and disseminating information on various cross-cutting issues. While efforts are underway in some countries to align different data interfaces and to improve dialogue between ministries through digitalization, the challenge of sustainable funding remains . Finding synergies among multiple data sources could be a solution to overcoming difficulties in integrating diverse data sources into a comprehensive EMIS policy .

Enhancing the use of data and evidence: Identifying the missing skills

Reflecting on the skills and knowledge needed to facilitate the use of data and evidence in conducting a situational analysis , proposed recommendations included understanding data requirements at different levels, technical skills for complex data handling, and fostering a culture of data monitoring and accountability alongside the importance of making data accessible to all stakeholders .   

A critical issue concerns the collection of extensive data and evidence that is not effectively utilized to inform strategic policy development and implementation. The importance of intentionally designing the research to meet these needs, externally commissioning the work to guarantee adherence to the structured plan, and implementing quality assurance measures was highlighted . There was also a call to focus on accountability mechanisms and data relevance . The move towards individual learner data and the importance of empowering local entities with digital tools were some of the strategies suggested to address these challenges.  

The session was closed by Gwang-Chol Chang , Chief of the Section of Education Policy at UNESCO, who concluded the session by underscoring the ongoing commitment to enhancing educational policies through evidence-based situational analysis and presented the topics of the upcoming FA1 Learning Series webinars.  

This first session attracted 722 unique viewers from all corners of the world. To keep informed about the upcoming FA1 Learning Series, visit this website .

Related items

• Policy Advice
• Programme implementation
• Sharing knowledge
• UN ＆ International cooperation
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent news

Not Just Title IX: How the Chevron Decision Could Affect Education Regulations

• Share article

The U.S. Supreme Court last month overruled a landmark 1984 decision that required courts to generally defer to federal agencies’ “reasonable interpretations” of federal law.

The decision in that case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , could have some major implications for regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education, possibly leading to more challenges to such rules and giving judges greater power to interpret federal education laws.

Here is a closer look at what happened and what’s at stake.

What did the Supreme Court rule?

In its June 28 decision in Loper Bright , the court overruled a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council , that has had a significant impact on federal agencies and their many regulations interpreting ambiguous federal statutes.

Writing for a 6-3 court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority. He said Cabinet departments and other federal agencies “have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

How might this involve the U.S. Department of Education?

Like other federal agencies, the Education Department operates under numerous federal statutes and promulgates hundreds of pages of regulations building on those laws. One of the department’s most recent regulations seeks to update the department’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—the landmark federal law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools and colleges.

The new Title IX rule is set to take effect on Aug. 1 but has been blocked in 21 states and at some schools in other states by injunctions stemming from legal challenges. Most of those lawsuits focus on the regulation’s interpretation of Title IX as barring discrimination based on gender identity.

What effect has Loper Bright played regarding the new Title IX rule?

One prominent opponent of the Education Department regulation, Alliance Defending Freedom, cited the then-pending rule in a friend-of-the-court brief in Loper Bright. In the brief , the alliance said: “No court should be forced by Chevron to defer to the department’s claim that Title IX means the opposite of what it says. The statute deals with discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity, and Title IX’s direct reference to a male-female binary excludes any gender identity interpretation.”

The alliance is behind several of the legal challenges to the regulation, assisting several states, school districts, and groups such as Moms for Liberty in suing the department. Two federal district courts ruled on injunctions before the Supreme Court issued its Loper Bright decision.

Those courts did at least a minimal analysis about whether the new regulation merited deference under the Chevron rule. They concluded that the answer was no.

“An agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that undoes the unambiguous language of the statute,” U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves of Lexington, Ky., said in a June 17 ruling. The Education Department was putting forth an unreasonable interpretation of Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination, he said.

What does the Biden administration and the challengers to the Title IX rule say about the effect of Loper Bright?

The U.S. Department of Justice, in an appeals court filing on behalf of U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona in response to one of the injunctions blocking the rule, said that the Loper Bright decision “does not affect the outcome of this case (or the validity of the [Title IX] rule) because neither the rule nor [the administration’s] arguments in defense of the rule rely on Chevron deference.”

The department’s recognition in the regulation “that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is necessarily sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX is based on the unambiguous text” of the statute, the filing said.

Alliance Defending Freedom takes a different view of the statute, of course, and it argues that if Loper Bright had gone the other way and preserved Chevron deference, the Education Department would have been quick to invoke such deference in defense of the Title IX rule.

“I think it would be pretty crazy to think the administration wouldn’t rely on Chevron if they had it at their disposal,” said Jonathan Scruggs, a senior counsel and vice president at ADF. “Taking out Chevron takes out a club in the department’s bag. It’s not the only club, but it’s an important one. Because it’s now gone, we can litigate the key issues, which is the meaning of the text.”

What other Education Department regulations might be affected?

A review of court decisions by Education Week found several in which the Chevron test was applied in challenges to Education Department regulations in the K-12 arena.

For example, in 1998, a federal appeals court deferred under Chevron to the Education Department’s interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race (among other factors) in federally funded programs. The court deferred to the department’s 1994 regulation that a school district’s failure to respond to racial harassment of a student by her peers was a violation of Title VI.

In 2012, a federal appeals court deferred under Chevron to an Education Department regulation requiring state and local agencies to reimburse parents and guardians for an independent educational evaluation of their children with disabilities.

In 2020, however, a federal district court held that a department regulation about the distribution of funding among public and private schools under the pandemic-inspired CARES Act was not owed deference under Chevron . Several states challenged a Trump administration rule that allowed more money to go to private schools, and the district court ruled that the statute unambiguously took the opposite view of the administration’s reading.

“When Congress has spoken clearly, as it did in [the statute], ‘‘that is the end of the matter,’ the ruling stated.

Just last year, in another case involving the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, a federal appeals court held that an Education Department regulation about who qualifies as a parent who can make educational decisions about a child with a disability was not entitled to deference under Chevron because the statute itself had spoken clearly that multiple persons could qualify for the role of parent in a particular case.

Is the Loper Bright decision likely to lead to fresh challenges of Education Department regulations?

That seems to be a distinct possibility.

“There’s just a new paradigm,” said Sonja Trainor, the executive director of the National School Attorneys Association. “ Chevron is a big pillar of administrative law. It has always been assumed that if the statute is ambiguous, you do what the agency says.”

Trainor said some school districts around the country might be motivated to challenge certain Education Department interpretations of not just Title IX, but also laws affecting students with disabilities, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. That law bars discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs and sometimes imposes certain requirements on districts different from, or in addition to, the IDEA.

Other regulations, such as those addressing accountability under the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (and its descendants such as the No Child Left Behind Act), have been unpopular and could be ripe for challenges.

What does Congress think of all this?

On June 30, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate education committee, sent a letter to Cardona asserting that the Education Department had repeatedly exceeded congressional authorization with its regulations. He alluded to the new Title IX rule among other issues.

Cassidy demanded that Cardona respond to a series of sharp questions, including, “How will the department change its current practices to enforce the laws as Congress writes them, and not to improperly legislate via agency action?”

An Education Department spokesperson said: “We have received the letter and are reviewing it.”

Francisco M. Negrón Jr., the founder of K12 Counsel, an education law consulting firm in Washington, said he thought the Cassidy letter was a bit over the top.

“Even in the evisceration of Chevron , the justices did not remove the ability of federal agencies to make regulations and promulgate them,” he said.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and several of her colleagues this week introduced a bill that would essentially overturn Loper Bright by codifying the Chevron deference doctrine into law.

Reed D. Rubinstein, a former acting general counsel of the Education Department during the Trump administration, supports the Loper Bright decision (like many conservatives do), despite having served in a job where he helped write and defend education regulations.

“I think the court may have gotten it right,” said Rubinstein, now the senior vice president of the America First Legal Foundation in Washington. “There are times when Congress has done its job poorly, and [in the department] you are trying [to] figure out what Congress means with a new law and then implement it.”

Executive branch officials “are going to have to stick to their constitutional duties and adhere to the text of the laws,” he said. “Where they don’t, the courts are going to have to check them. But, also, judges can’t become policy czars.”

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

Education Policy Analysis

Education policy analysis 2003, centre for educational research and innovation.

• Discontinued

OECD’s annual companion report to Education at a Glance. It normally analyzes several of the key issues emerging from the EAG data for the year.

English Also available in: French , German

• ISSN: 19991517 (online)
• https://doi.org/10.1787/19991517
• Subscribe to the RSS feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

The 2003 edition of Education Policy Analysis draws on international perspectives to provide up-to-date analyses of key education policy challenges and initiatives. It contains reviews of policy issues and international developments in the ways that countries define students with disabilities, difficulties and disadvantages, the approaches they are taking to meet those needs, and what these imply for debates about equity and inclusion; new approaches to career guidance, for both young people and adults, that facilitate lifelong learning by developing career management skills over the lifespan; the profound changes underway in the objectives and clientele of higher education, and what these imply for the way higher education is financed and governed; and policy options for making sure that investments in adult lifelong learning pay off and are sustainable over the long term. The 2003 edition also includes, for the first time, a summary of major education policy changes across a wide range of fields in OECD countries.

20 Nov 2003 116 pages English Also available in: Chinese , French

https://doi.org/10.1787/epa-2003-en 9789264104570 (PDF)

Author(s): OECD

• Click to access:
• Click to download PDF - 3.14MB PDF

Cite this content as:

Related content.

• Education at a Glance 2003 : OECD Indicators

See other content on

Center for American Progress

Project 2025’s Elimination of Title I Funding Would Hurt Students and Decimate Teaching Positions in Local Schools

Project 2025 would decimate more than 180,000 teacher positions and negatively affect the academic outcomes of 2.8 million vulnerable students across the country.

Advancing Racial Equity and Justice, Building an Economy for All, Education, Education, K-12, Educational Resource Equity, Every Student Succeeds Act, Investment and Funding Equity for Public Education, Racial Equity and Justice +5 More

Media Contact

Mishka espey.

Senior Manager, Media Relations

[email protected]

Government Affairs

Madeline shepherd.

Director, Federal Affairs

Part of a Series

Project 2025: Exposing the Far-Right Assault on America

This article is part of a series from the Center for American Progress exposing how the sweeping Project 2025 policy agenda would harm all Americans. This new authoritarian playbook, published by the Heritage Foundation, would destroy the 250-year-old system of checks and balances upon which U.S. democracy has relied and give far-right politicians, judges, and corporations more control over Americans’ lives.

Since its establishment, the U.S. Department of Education has led the nation’s efforts to improve and advance elementary and secondary education. When Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979 to establish the agency, it defined one of its core functions, in part, as follows: “to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.”

Now, the far-right authoritarian playbook known as Project 2025 puts that mission at risk. It proposes dismantling the key role of the federal government to increase access and close the educational opportunity gap, especially in communities with lower property values, since a large portion of the country’s K-12 system is funded with local property taxes. In doing so, the playbook creates intentional harm on today’s children and generations to come. One of Project 2025’s most extreme plans includes abolishing the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal agency that is mandated to ensure equal opportunity and accountability and to fund states and school districts for elementary and secondary education.

Sign up for the Spotlight Project 2025 newsletter The newsletter exposes the far-right assault on America

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The policy proposals of Project 2025 undermine public education, a fundamental pillar of our democracy. Specifically, they recommend that the next far-right administration redirect taxpayer dollars intended for K-12 public education to fund private and religious schools for the wealthy; roll back Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex; eradicate Head Start ; block student debt cancellation programs and increase monthly payments for student loan borrowers ; censor anti-racist curricula that teach tolerance in schools; and eliminate school nutrition programs, particularly for children experiencing food insecurity during the summer when they lack access to school meals.

Moreover, Project 2025 proposes disinvestments in programs that support states in meeting the academic needs of the nation’s most vulnerable students, including students with disabilities served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and low-income students at Title I-eligible schools.

Title I supports low-income students and nearly 2 in 3 public schools

Title I, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) obligates supplemental federal funding to states to ensure that all children, regardless of their income status, receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education. Title I was created in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was signed into law by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. In enacting Title I, Congress recognized that students in high-poverty schools have greater educational needs—which continues to be a reality—and states lacked the resources to close this divide; therefore, federal aid was required to provide the academic services and opportunity necessary for these students.

Since its inception, Title I has been a critical program to address chronic funding and opportunity gaps between students experiencing high poverty and their more affluent peers.

More than half of the nation’s public schools serve a high concentration of low-income students, with 63 percent of traditional public schools and 62 percent of public charter schools in the 2021-22 school year identifying as Title I-eligible. Since its inception, Title I has been a critical program to address chronic funding and opportunity gaps between students experiencing high poverty and their more affluent peers. Despite its impact, Title I has experienced significantly low levels of funding over the years.

Title I supports the teacher workforce

Title I funding is critical to hiring and retaining well-prepared teachers in schools. During the 2023-24 school year, every state in the country reported a teacher shortage in one or more subject area. But high-poverty schools are at a double disadvantage when it comes to teacher shortages: Recent research shows that turnover rates are higher at high-poverty schools (29 percent) than at schools with lower concentrations of poverty (19 percent). Indeed, teachers are leaving high-poverty schools at alarmingly high rates due to poor working conditions and unmanageable workloads.

During the 2023-2024 school year, every state in the country reported a teacher shortage in one or more subject areas.

Title I provides necessary resources for districts to support and incentivize teachers in hard-to-staff schools that serve a higher percentage of low-income students and students of color. In order to close the achievement gap between high-poverty and wealthier schools, districts need more federal aid through Title I and other programs to support early-career teachers and retain outstanding teachers who make up the “ Irreplaceables ,” due to their high performance and success.

Project 2025 would worsen current teacher shortages by eliminating nearly 6 percent of the workforce

Project 2025 would decimate more than 180,000 teacher positions and negatively affect the academic outcomes of 2.8 million vulnerable students across the country. The loss of 180,000 teacher positions represents 5.64 percent of the teacher workforce nationally, which is roughly 3.2 million public school teachers . Table 1 illustrates the loss of teacher positions and affected students in each state as a result of phasing out Title I funding. At least 5 percent of teacher positions in 32 of the 50 states would be lost if federal Title I aid were eliminated. In some states, such as Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Nevada, and Florida, nearly 10 percent teacher jobs would be lost. Louisiana would experience the greatest impact, with more than 12 percent of teaching positions eliminated.

Project 2025’s proposal to phase out Title I reverses national efforts to retain teachers , including legislation to increase teacher pay—a contributing factor to retention. Today, the average teacher salary in the majority of states is below the minimum living wage, and teachers are being paid 5 percent less than what they were a decade ago when adjusted for inflation.

Title I funding directly benefits teachers and students in suburban, rural, and urban schools across the country. Districts use this funding to provide direct student support services and to hire and retain teachers. Project 2025’s proposal to eliminate Title I funding would lead to the loss of teacher positions, high teacher-to-student ratios, and a lack of school-based programs and quality instruction. This would be devastating to local schools, students, families, and communities.

Teaching is the only profession that prepares workers of every industry. Teachers, and the students they serve, must receive adequate support in preparation to entering the workforce, supporting the social and emotional development of future generations, and being informed citizens our democracy can rely on.

Methodology

The analysis in Table 1 used official fiscal year 2023 spending data from the U.S. Department of Education to demonstrate individual state and national funding implications if the federal “Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies” were to be eliminated, which Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership proposes happen over 10 years.

To calculate the funding-cut equivalent of teacher jobs as a result of this proposal, the authors divided the most recent average teacher salary from the 2021-22 school year, according to state figures from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), by the percentage of total compensation that goes toward wages and salaries associated with primary, secondary, and special education school teachers, according to U.S. Department of Labor data , to get the total employer cost for employing public K-12 school teachers. The authors then divided the total Title I dollar amount that each state receives from the U.S. Department of Education by the above sum. To calculate the percentage of the teacher workforce represented by that figure, the authors divided the funding-cut equivalent of teacher jobs for each state by the total number of public K-12 teachers in the state as of 2022, which is the latest available data from NCES .

In regard to the figure indicating the potential teacher positions at risk, the authors acknowledge that there are programs that make up the total funding amount that states receive for elementary and secondary education that may not go directly toward teacher compensation; however, if that funding were altogether cut and the services it funded remained, other state and local revenue would need to fill the hole, leaving the equivalent funding cut equal to roughly 182,000 teacher positions.

Finally, to calculate the number of students affected by this proposal, the analysis multiplied the most recent data for state-by-state pupil-to-teacher ratios from the NCES by the number of teachers affected.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here . American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Weadé James

Senior Director, K-12 Education Policy

Will Ragland

Vice President of Research, Advocacy and Outreach

K-12 Education Policy

The K-12 Education Policy team is committed to developing policies for a new education agenda rooted in principles of opportunity for all and equity in access.

Explore The Series

The far right’s new authoritarian playbook could usher in a sweeping array of dangerous policies.

Project 2025 Would Increase Gun Violence, Reversing Historic Declines

Stay informed.

on K-12 Education Policy

What is Project 2025?

It’s a blueprint for what a second Trump administration could look like, dreamed up by his allies and former aides.

If Donald Trump struggled somewhat in his first administration to move the country dramatically to the right, he’ll be ready to go in a second term.

That’s the aim behind Project 2025, a comprehensive plan by former and likely future leaders of a Trump administration to remake America in a conservative mold while dramatically expanding presidential power and allowing Trump to use it to go after his critics.

The plan is gaining attention just as Trump is trying to moderate his stated positions to win the election, so he’s criticized some of what’s in it as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” and insisted that neither he nor his campaign had anything to do with Project 2025.

Still, what’s in this document is a pretty good indicator of what a second Trump presidency could look like. Here’s what Project 2025 is and how it could reshape America.

It’s a blueprint for a second Trump administration

The centerpiece is a 900-page plan that calls for extreme policies on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives, from mass deportations, to politicizing the federal government in a way that would give Trump control over the Justice Department, to cutting entire federal agencies, to infusing Christian nationalism into every facet of government policy by calling for a ban on pornography and promoting policies that encourage “marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families.”

This isn’t coming directly from the Trump campaign. But it should be taken seriously because of the people who wrote it, analysts say. The main organization behind the plan, the Heritage Foundation, is a revolving door for Trump officials (and Heritage is a sponsor of the Republican National Convention, which will hand him the nomination next week).

“This is meant as an organized statement of the Trumpist, conservative movement, both on policy and personnel, and politics,” said William Galston, head of governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

2024 presidential election

Project 2025 calls for abortion limits, slashing climate change and LGBTQ health care funding, and much more

A few of the highlights:

Remake the federal workforce to be political : Instead of nonpartisan civil servants implementing policies on everything from health to education and climate, the executive branch would be filled with Trump loyalists. “It is necessary to ensure that departments and agencies have robust cadres of political staff,” the plan says. That means nearly every decision federal agencies make could advance a political agenda — as in whether to spend money on constituencies that lean Democratic. The project calls for cutting LGBTQ health programs, for example.

Cut the Education Department: Project 2025 would make extensive changes to public schooling, cutting longtime low-income and early education federal programs like Head Start, for example, and even the entire Education Department. “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated,” the plan reads.

Give Trump power to investigate his opponents : Project 2025 would move the Justice Department, and all of its law enforcement arms like the FBI, directly under presidential control. It calls for a “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the FBI and for the administration to go over its investigations with a fine-toothed comb to nix any the president doesn’t like. This would dramatically weaken the independence of federal law enforcement agencies. “There’s going to be an all-out assault on the Department of Justice and the FBI,” said Galston, of Brookings. “It will mean tight White House control of the DOJ and FBI.”

Make reproductive care, particularly abortion pills, harder to get : It doesn’t specifically call for a national abortion ban, but abortion is one of the most-discussed topics in the plan, with proposals throughout encouraging the next president “to lead the nation in restoring a culture of life in America again.” It would do this by prosecuting anyone mailing abortion pills (“Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world,” the plan says). It would raise the threat of criminalizing those who provide abortion care by using the government to track miscarriage, stillbirths and abortions, and make it harder to get emergency contraceptive care covered by insurance. It would also end federal government protections for members of the military and their families to get abortion care.

Crack down on even legal immigration : It would create a new “border patrol and immigration agency” to resurrect Trump’s border wall, build camps to detain children and families at the border, and send out the military to deport millions of people who are already in the country illegally ( including dreamers ) — a deportation effort so big that it could put a major dent in the U.S. economy. “Illegal immigration should be ended, not mitigated; the border sealed, not reprioritized,” the plan says.

Slash climate change protections : Project 2025 calls for getting rid of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which forecasts weather and tracks climate change, describing it as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” It would increase Arctic drilling and shutter the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change departments, all while making it easier to up fossil fuel production.

Ban transgender people from the military and consider reinstating the draft : “Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service,” it reads. The author of this part of the plan led the Defense Department at the end of Trump’s presidency, and he told The Washington Post that the government should seriously consider mandatory military service.

How all of this would be implemented

A huge part of this project is to recruit and train people on how to pull the levers of government or read the law in novel ways to carry out these dramatic changes to federal policy. There’s even a place on the plan’s website where you can submit your résumé.

But there are some major hurdles to getting the big stuff done, even if Trump and Republicans win control of Washington next year. For one, Trump doesn’t appear to agree with everything in it. His campaign platform barely mentions abortion, while Project 2025 zeroes in on it repeatedly.

Also, some of these ideas are impractical or possibly illegal. Analysts are divided about whether Trump can politicize the civil workforce to fire them at will, for example. And the plan calls for using the military to carry out mass deportations on a historic scale , which could be constitutionally iffy.

Ominously, one of the project’s leaders opened the door to political violence to will all of this into being: “We are in the process of the second American revolution,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts warned recently, “which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be.”

Why Project 2025 is getting so much attention right now

It’s not unusual for wannabe administration officials to plan for how they’d govern once they get back in power. But what is unusual is how dramatic and unapologetically extreme many of these proposals are.

And the Biden campaign — which is obviously struggling right now with existential questions about its nominee — sees this as an easy target to campaign on.

Democrats are circulating a survey from a liberal organization that suggests talking about Project 2025 as a “takeover” of American government by Trumpists resonates with voters.

“It’s like reading a horror novel,” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “Each page makes you want to read the next one, but when you finish reading it, you’re scared and disgusted.”

That’s much to the frustration of the Trump campaign, which doesn’t want such specific (and politically unpopular) ideas out there pegged to his campaign, as he’s trying to moderate some of his positions to win the election.

“It makes no sense to put all the crazy things you’ll be attacked for down on paper while you’re running,” a Trump adviser told The Washington Post recently .

But it’s fair to think of Project 2025 as a pretty good indicator of what a second Trump presidency would look like, analysts say.

“It’s not like Trump is going to hand out this booklet to his Cabinet on Day One and say, ‘Here you go,’” said Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “But it reflects real goals of important people in Trump’s community.”

A previous version of this article misspelled the name of the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Strain as Michel. The article has been corrected.

Election 2024

Follow live updates on the 2024 election from our reporters on the campaign trail and in Washington.

Kamala Harris: A majority of Democratic delegates have pledged to support Harris , signaling she is likely to secure the presidential nomination next month. We broke down seven options for her vice-presidential pick .

Biden drops out: President Biden addressed the nation , seeking to define his legacy and explain his decision to exit the presidential race. Here’s what happened in the hours before Biden posted a letter announcing his decision to end his campaign .

Trump VP pick: Donald Trump has chosen Sen. J.D. Vance (Ohio) as his running mate , selecting a rising star in the Republican Party and a previously outspoken Trump critic who in recent years has closely aligned himself with the former president.

Presidential election polls: Here’s what voters think about Harris replacing Biden and how Harris performs against Trump in recent polls .

Where Harris stands on Israel, abortion, climate change, education and the economy

[Editor's note: An earlier version of this story misstated Harris' proposed 2019 climate plan investment levels. The correct estimate is nearly seven times more than Biden's current proposal.]

Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the Democratic party’s presidential frontrunner after Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid Sunday.

Most Democrats have backed Harris, who announced her 2024 campaign for president shortly after Biden penned a letter explaining his decision to exit the 2024 race. Depending on who you ask, Harris is viewed as a moderate or a progressive reformer.

A former prosecutor, Harris was elected San Francisco’s district attorney with a “tough on crime” message in 2003 and worked in that role for seven years. She became the state’s attorney general in 2011 and served until 2017, when she was elected to represent California in the U.S. Senate.

Text with USA TODAY: Sign-up now and get answers to all your election questions.

More: Election 2024 live updates: Endorsements rush in for Harris; Trump attacks begin

Harris launched her own unsuccessful presidential campaign at a rally in her hometown of Oakland, California in 2019. She dropped her bid for the White House and joined President Joe Biden’s ticket in August the following year. In 2021, she was sworn in as vice president.

Decades in the public spotlight and on the public record, here is what we know about where Harris stands on key issues:

Foreign Policy

As Biden’s second-in-command, Harris has largely stood behind his foreign policy positions, but there are signs she could be tougher on Israel over the war in Gaza than the president.

Harris has not given reason to believe she will deviate much from Biden on issues relating to China , for example. She is also unlikely to sway from supporting Ukraine. Harris said earlier this year that Russia has committed “crimes against humanity” in Ukraine over the last two years.

Harris has not directly opposed Biden’s staunch support for Israel, but has expressed sympathy for the more than 38,000 Palestinian lives lost during the conflict. She was one of the first high-profile members of his administration to call for an immediate temporary cease-fire in March. She acknowledged the “immense scale of suffering” in Gaza and said the Israel-Hamas war is a “humanitarian catastrophe” for innocent civilians.

Harris’ support for women’s access to abortions has been a focal point of her tenure as the country’s first female vice president. She embarked on a nationwide Reproductive Freedoms Tour earlier this year to draw attention to attacks on abortion access following the Dobbs decision . She attended her first stop in Wisconsin on Jan. 22, the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade .

Harris proposed federal protections that would limit state abortion restrictions during her first presidential campaign. Under her proposal, states would need to clear laws regulating abortion with the Department of Justice, which would need to confirm they are constitutional before taking effect, she explained in 2019 .

“How dare these elected leaders believe they are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women what is in their best interest?” Harris asked during a visit to a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic in March. “We have to be a nation that trusts women.”

Harris has traveled on an Economic Opportunity Tour this summer to defend the Biden administration’s economic policy and attack former President Donald Trump’s economic agenda.

While on tour, she touted legislation passed during Biden’s time in office, including the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act . Harris has tried to emphasize that wage increases have outpaced inflation since the pandemic and made the case that Trump has plans to give more tax cuts to the rich.

“Donald Trump gave tax cuts to billionaires,” she said in a June social media post . “President Joe Biden and I are investing in the middle class and making sure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.”

The vice president has made clear that climate change is a key issue a Harris administration would seek to address.

While running for president in 2019, she proposed a climate plan with a $10 trillion price tag — nearly seven times more than the $1.6 trillion Biden has invested in addressing the issue. She also called for a ban on fracking.

As a senator, she co-sponsored the Green New Deal , which called for a dramatic increase in the production of renewable fuels, including wind, solar, and hydropower sources. The 10-year mobilization plan pushed for a transition to energy systems less reliant on generating greenhouse gases, which are the primary contributors to climate change.

Harris has been an advocate inside the Biden administration pushing for the president to forgive student loan debt , which became a staple of his domestic policy agenda.

As a senator, she co-sponsored Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ legislation to make two-year college free for all students and waive tuition for middle-class students attending four-year public universities.

At a Pride Month event last year, she criticized Florida’s 2022 “Don’t Say Gay” law banning educators from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary and middle school classrooms. Shortly after she announced her presidential campaign Sunday, the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Harris.

Rachel Barber is a 2024 election fellow at USA TODAY, focusing on politics and education. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, at @rachelbarber_

Advertisement

How Kamala Harris Performs Against Donald Trump in the Polls

The vice president could enter the general election campaign in a better position than President Biden.

• Share full article

By Ruth Igielnik

• Published July 21, 2024 Updated July 23, 2024

[Follow the latest polls and see updated polling averages of the Harris vs. Trump matchup .]

After President Biden ended his re-election bid and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the Democratic Party’s nomination, questions have turned to her electoral viability — and how she might perform against former President Donald J. Trump.

Across recent polls, Ms. Harris trails Mr. Trump by two percentage points nationally, 46 percent to 48 percent, according to The New York Times’s polling average on Sunday.

National Polling Average ›

This is an improvement over Mr. Biden’s standing in the race: When he announced that he was ending his campaign on Sunday, he trailed Mr. Trump by three percentage points in The Times’s national polling average , 47 percent to 44 percent.

In recent swing state polls , taken before Mr. Biden announced he would withdraw from the presidential race and completed before the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump, Ms. Harris was only down by a percentage point in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania in a hypothetical matchup with Mr. Trump. And she was winning by a more comfortable five percentage points in Virginia, a state where Mr. Biden was up by only a razor-thin margin.

THE NEW YORK TIMES/SIENA COLLEGE POLL

July 9 to 12

How Biden and Harris

Fare Against Trump

Pennsylvania

Shaded areas represent margins of error.

How Biden and Harris Fare Against Trump

In both states, Ms. Harris performed slightly stronger than Mr. Biden with Black voters, younger voters, and women — all groups that Democrats need in order to be successful this fall. And, importantly, those are groups where Mr. Biden appeared to be losing ground.

As recently as April, Ms. Harris was polling substantially behind Mr. Biden’s standing, but she has gained ground in recent surveys.

At the same time, increasing shares of Democrats had said that they wanted Mr. Biden to step aside. In an AP-NORC poll conducted between July 11 and July 15, nearly two-thirds of Democrats said they wanted the president to withdraw and allow the party to select a different candidate. On Sunday, they got their wish.

Ruth Igielnik is a Times polling editor who conducts polls and analyzes and reports on the results. More about Ruth Igielnik