Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Polarization and discord on the frontline of ed...

Polarization and discord on the frontline of education provision during COVID-19: an impediment to post-crisis recovery?

The COVID19 crisis has created numerous uncertainties and complex challenges for people on the frontline of education provision – teachers, school leaders, students. Often enough, these challenges were exacerbated by crisis response measures that were introduced fast and without much contingency or support planning (OECD 2021). In many countries, a number of hard-fought achievements in the areas of quality, equity, and inclusion in education are now at risk of reversal due to the combined effect of the pandemic and of long-standing problems in education, and of policies that were introduced to address both (Cairney and Kippin 2021).
Today, one of the imminent tasks facing education policymakers and practitioners worldwide is the task of swift and sustainable post-COVID education recovery (Bird, Castleman & Lohn, 2021; Chu, 2020), i.e., in the form of higher financial commitments, new reforms, as well as readiness to learn from the pandemic experience. In the same vein, a global consensus is emerging that teachers must be (and will be) at the heart of such post-COVID education recovery as a driving force in charge of innovation and policy implementation (UN 2021; Wajega 2021). Yet, how well are teachers prepared for that role, and are they willing and able to take it on in the first place?
Our research seeks an answer to these questions from the perspective of “lessons learned” during the pandemic. Our starting point was the assumption that the anticipated, intended outcomes of a post-COVID recovery policy will depend not only on the design of those policies, but also on the ways in which these policies will be appropriated - creatively interpreted, construed, and refracted through the prism of the experiences, contexts, and identities of those who are implementing them, in this case the teachers. In the same vein, we hypothesized that the attitudes, reactions, and responses of education participants to policies introduced during the public health crisis may be a good enough proxy for the professional context and “mood” in which the appropriation of post-COVID recovery policies will take place and from there – for the success prospects of these policies.
To capture and then analyze first-hand policy appropriation experiences involving schoolteachers during the first year of the pandemic, we turned to social media. We were guided by the consideration that educators often use social media as a means for sharing resources, for student and parent interaction, and for collegial discussions (e.g. Lundin, Lantz-Andersson, & Hillman, 2017). Social media is also a “location” to which many frontline participants (teachers, parents, administrators) turned to in their effort to navigate the changed context during the Covid-19 crisis (e.g., Trust, Carpenter, Krutka, and Kimmons, 2020).
To harvest the evidence we need, we used a newly developed methodology (frontline evidence collection methodology) for sampling content data from social media (Milovanovitch, Jokic, and Gelashvili 2021). The methodology is in line with the theoretical underpinnings of sociocultural policy analysis and digital ethnography and allowed us to safeguard the privacy of individual users, work with a large volume of data while keeping the data collection feasible and relevant, and also to carry out non-automated data harvesting in compliance with the terms of use of the social media platforms.
We applied the methodology in a selection of 10 countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Northern Africa, and the EU. We scanned the content data generated by a target population (education participants) of 3.9 million users in these countries and harvested a total of 43759 relevant data segments (posts and comments) posted in 45 special interest groups on Facebook in the period March-July 2020 in five countries (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ukraine, and Russia), and September-December 2020 in another six countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Tunisia, and Ukraine). We then performed multiple rounds of computer-assisted qualitative analysis of the data.
Our results confirm that social media, specifically Facebook, are a rich repository of organically generated evidence on how education participants were transforming official policies into new, locally situated policies, while discussing and arguing over new challenges posed by the crisis, and also over long-standing old problems which were reinforced by it. Our data also shows that in most countries, there is a considerable degree of polarization of attitudes among frontline education participants, and a disparity in their willingness to adapt and trust education authorities and the policies they have introduced.
We illustrate these findings and their potential impact on capacity for post-COVID recovery on the in-depth example of one country – Bulgaria – chosen because of its interesting position as member of the European Union which shares a common legacy of post-Soviet education reforms that have left unresolved a number of problems with the teaching profession, such as low payment, aging workforce, unequal treatment, and disparities in working conditions based on city, school type, students’ ethnicity, etc.
Our analysis of data from that country reveals a situation of distrust, conflict, and discord, which appears to inhibit progress and leads to situations in which different players and parts of the education sector follow diverging objectives that are different or contradict the overall reform and policy goals. In reference to organizational polarization theory, we extrapolate that in such a context of complex impediments to change and improvement, successful post-COVID recovery may be at risk as well.

More Decks by Center for Applied Policy and Integrity

Other Decks in Education

Transcript

  1. Teodora Hristova Center for Applied Policy and Integrity Polarization and

    discord on the frontline of education provision during COVID-19: an impediment to post-crisis recovery?
  2. “In the new Strategy 2025, we have already started with

    modifications to the school curricula to promote STEM subjects and make the study programme more student-centered.” A Minister of Education in a TV interview “They killed geography, physics and chemistry by merging it into this bastardly subject “Humans and their environment” which will fail everyone and will not prepare them for anything, for sure not for university.” A geography teacher in a closed Facebook group
  3. A focus on content data from social media Advantages Challenges

    • Organic • Readily available • Real time • Low risk to privacy • Volume • Relevance • Extraction (TOS)
  4. The “frontline” methodology helps to: 1. Document policies as real‐life

    (trigger) events in times of disruption and intensification of policy interventions 2. Capture the voices of people concerned by these policies (target population) through organic content data from social media Guiding questions: 1. What was the experience of education participants on the frontline of education provision with the policies introduced in response to the COVID19 pandemic? 2. What can we learn from these appropriation experiences for policy improvement?
  5. Step 1: Cataloguing policies and measures (“Template 1”) 1. By

    sector: a) Policies and measures in education (or a segment or governance level of education) b) Policies and measures in adjacent sectors which concern education c) “Parking” 2. By reference period (date of adoption) 3. By substance 1. Documenting policies as trigger events Step 2: Validation of the catalogue 1. Comprehensiveness (third party) 2. Allocation
  6. Step 1: Data specification Specifying what content data we need,

    including the people we need it from Step 2: Sampling frame Establishing a sampling frame – that is, a list of “locations” where we can find such data Step 3: Selecting a sample Selecting a sample of data in these locations, which is as relevant as possible Sampling and evidence collection: capturing the voices of the target population
  7. Reference period First lockdown 2020 Reopening and hybrid modality 2020

    April 2020 July 2020 September 2020 December 2020
  8. Locations and data harvested: pilot phase • Reference period: initial

    school closures (March‐July 2020) • Geographic coverage: (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia) • Sampling frame: 20 social media groups • Target population in the sampling frame: 564497 users • Relevant content data harvested: 1932 posts and 24516 comments
  9. Locations and data harvested: scaling up • Reference period: reopening

    and second lockdown (September‐December 2020) • Geographic coverage: (Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Tunisia, Ukraine) • Sampling frame: 25 social media groups and 6 official FB pages • Target population in the sampling frame: 3.38 million • Relevant content data harvested: 16847 posts and comments
  10. The official perspective: Significance of policy areas by number and

    scope of measures, and by stakeholder concern (aggregate for all countries, lockdown and reopening periods) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1.1 School closure 1.2 Transition distance and online teaching 1.3 Assessment and evaluation 1.4 Graduation exams 1.5 Support to teachers and students 1.6 Organisation of schooling 2.1 Sanitary Regulations 2.2 Labour regulations 2.3 Prevention of spread 2.4 Financial assistance to households Lockdown period Total authorities Total stakeholders 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1.1 Management of human and financial resources 1.2 Capital and infrastructure investment 1.3 Assessment and evaluation 1.4 Graduation exams 1.5 Support to teachers and students 1.6 Organisation of schooling 2.1 Sanitary Regulations 2.2 Labour regulations 2.3 Prevention of spread 2.4 Financial assistance to households Reopening period Total authorities Total stakeholders
  11. 1.72 0.20 0.00 0.65 6.69 1.40 4.94 27.18 9.15 19.45

    39.21 10.30 13.46 12.86 6.54 0.00 11.54 9.67 6.64 19.83 21.88 57.88 40.30 37.34 33.99 10.92 10.48 2.28 5.88 0.61 2.50 4.39 2.49 10.46 2.13 0.16 0.27 1.24 2.61 1.22 0.00 0.14 2.28 2.61 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Ukraine Serbia Russia Kazakhstan Armenia PA1.1 School closure PA1.2 Initial transition to DE PA1.3 Assessment and evaluation PA1.4 Graduation exam PA1.5 Support to teachers and students PA1.6 Organisation of schooling PA2.1 Prevention of spread PA2.2 Labour regulations PA2.3 Economic regulations PA2.4 Financial assistance to households Frontline perspective: Significance of policy areas by stakeholder discussion (by country, lockdown period)
  12. Frontline perspective: Significance of policy areas by stakeholder discussion (by

    country, reopening period) 4.1% 3.4% 2.4% 6.5% 3.6% 27.9% 1.0% 0.9% 5.5% 1.5% 2.4% 0.8% 6.4% 8.8% 14.4% 3.8% 9.2% 1.6% 0.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.5% 2.6% 7.1% 25.6% 21.9% 4.1% 6.0% 17.6% 53.6% 50.4% 44.9% 39.0% 50.7% 29.8% 25.5% 7.2% 7.5% 42.2% 22.5% 18.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 3.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Bulgaria Estonia Georgia Italy Tunisia Ukraine 1.1 Management of human and/or financial resources 1.2 Capital and infrastructure investment 1.3 Assessment and evaluation 1.4 Graduation exams 1.5 Support to teachers and students 1.6 Organisation of schooling 2.1 Prevention of spread 2.2 Labour regulations 2.3 Economic regulations 2.4 Financial assistance to households
  13. Stakeholder disagreement (discord) as a policy‐related phenomenon Shared features of

    the statements: 1. They concern areas of policy or practice in education 2. They convey a positive or a negative sentiment regarding the professional practice and/or learning experiences of education participants in these areas “… Are you serious?! I havenʹt been able to find a job at school in a few years, because ... I am over the acceptable age, too old (?!?) or ‐ I am not from GERB (a political party) for the probable reason!/. Everyone and their dog gets hired if from GERB, especially after the recent significant salary increases. But not all is bad. Demand for QUALITY private tutors in English has grown!!!
  14. 1. How prevalent is discord among stakeholders in Bulgarian school

    education? 2. What is the origin of stakeholder discord? 2a. Is it associated with the professional context of education participants? If yes, how? 2b. Is it associated with the policy interventions of authorities? If yes, how? 2c. How does discord relate to the policy appropriation experience of ed. participants? 3. Who are those who disagree and whom do they blame? 3a. Do people tend to communicate who they are? 3b. Do people tend to assign blame? 3c. Which group is most outspoken, and which one is being blamed the most? 3d. Are education participants self‐critical?
  15. How prevalent is discord among stakeholders in Bulgarian school education?

    75.85% 24.15% NEGATIVE POSITIVE N=969 “Teachers cannot choose because they do not assert their right to choice. Recently, extremely modern textbooks and teaching aids have appeared, I boldly say that they are above the world average in quality.”
  16. Origin of discord: professional context 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

    25% 30% 35% 40% 1.3c Provider evaluation 1.6c Administrative procedures and leadership 2.4 Financial assistance to households 1.2 Infrastructure 1.5c Support for students 1.6b Organisation of the school year 1.4 Graduation exams 1.5a Teaching and learning materials 1.5b Support for teachers 2.2 Labour regulations 1.3a Student assessment 1.3b Teacher evaluation 1.1 Resource management 2.1 Prevention of spread 1.6a Organisation of education provision “There is no way to happen this distance learning because there is no camera in every classroom. And in fact, this is not a good option for children, because they lack socialization” “...there will be two groups and 15 children in a group. Thеsе wеrе probably the only good news ... But from then on, it turned out that there would be two shifts. From 8:30 to 12:00 and 13:30 to 17:00. I would like to note that these are the exact hours ( 3.5 astronomical hours), and on Friday they will be 2.5 astronomical hours ... I was prepared that the children would have less than 6 hours in half‐day organization, but I admit that 2.5 hours was a shock.…”
  17. Is discord associated with the policy interventions of education authorities?

    0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1.1 Resource management 1.2 Infrastructure 1.3a Student assessment 1.3b Teacher evaluation 1.3c Provider evaluation 1.4 Graduation exams 1.5a Teaching and learning materials 1.5b Support for teachers 1.5c Support for students 1.6a Organisation of ed. provision 1.6a.1 School closure 1.6a.2 Distance learning 1.6a.3 Classroom attendance rules 1.6a.4 Programme and curricular mods. 1.6a.5 Parental involvement 1.6a.6 Other 1.6b Organisation of the school year 1.6c Administrative procedures and leadership 2.1 Prevention of spread 2.2 Labour regulations 2.3 Econommic regulations 2.4 Financial assistance to households 3. Undefined Policies % Negative %
  18. How does discord relate to the policy experiences of education

    participants EXPERIENCE\E.2 Challenge EXPERIENCE\E.4 Gap EXPERIENCE\E.7 Integrity EXPERIENCE\E.3 Support EXPERIENCE\E.1 Content EXPERIENCE\E.6 Undefined EXPERIENCE\E.5 Commercial NEGATIVE % POSITIVE % “...If I have to be painfully honest, I will say that principals are usually hired teachers with connections. They are not something more than the others, very often even less…”
  19. Do people disclose who they are and how keen are

    they on assigning blame? 25.05% 23.58% 1.58% 49.79% W - Teachers W - Parents W - Principals W - Undefined Who N=969 33.83% 16.22% 13.13% 5.17% 0.80% 30.85% T - Teachers T - Ministry of education T - Parents T - Principals T - Professional association T - Undefined Target N=969
  20. Which group is most outspoken, and which one is being

    blamed the most? 24% 24% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% W - Parents W - Teachers W - Principals Most outspoken stakeholder groups N=477 47% 27% 16% 8% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% T - Teachers T - Ministry of education T - Parents T - Principals T - Professional associations Most blamed stakeholder groups N=695
  21. Which group is most outspoken, and which one is being

    blamed the most? In which policy areas?
  22. Are education participants self‐critical (ready to take responsibility?) 43% 24%

    23% 10% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% T - Teachers T - Parents T - MoES T - Principals T - Professional associations Whom do parents criticise the most? 45% 27% 27% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% T - Teachers T - MoES T - Parents T - Professional associations T - Principals Whom do principals criticise the most? 63% 18% 12% 6% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% T - Teachers T - Parents T - MoES T - Principals T - Professional associations Whom do teachers criticise the most?
  23. Conclusions ➔ The Bulgarian case as a national follow up

    and preparation for a follow‐up ➔ Education participants are not part of decision‐making ➔ Discord is not part of the usual reform implementation needs and capacity assessments ➔ What’s next? • Focus groups • Establishing impact