COVID-19 and the second exams fiasco across the UK: four nations trying to avoid immediate policy failure.

In 2021, the UK and devolved governments tried to avoid the school exams fiasco of 2020. Their immediate marker of success was to prevent a similar U-turn on their COVID-19 school exams replacement policies. They still cancelled the traditional exam format, and sought teacher assessments to determine their grades, but this time without using an algorithm to standardise the results. The outcomes produced some concerns about inequity, since the unequal exam results are similar to those experienced in 2020. However, we did not witness the same sense of acute political crisis. We explain these developments by explaining this year's 'windows of opportunity' overseen by four separate governments, in which the definition of the problem, feasibility of each solution, and motive of policymakers to select one, connects strongly to the previous U-turn. A policy solution that had been rejected during the first window became a lifeline during the second and a likely choice during the third. This action solved an immediate crisis despite exacerbating the problem that ministers had previously sought to avoid ('grade inflation'). It produced another year of stark education inequity, but also ensured that inequity went from part of an acute political crisis to its usual status as a chronic low-attention policy problem.

Policy design for territorial equity in multi-level and multi-sectoral political systems: Comparing health and education strategies.

The EU has many plans to foster equity and spatial justice. However, each has separate reference points, and it is difficult to find an overall vision. To demonstrate, we analyse two sectoral strategies to identify their implications for spatial justice strategies. Education focuses on early investment and public service reform. Health prioritises intersectoral action to address the 'social determinants' beyond the control of health services. Both warn against equating territorial cohesion or spatial justice with equal access to public services. These findings could inform European Commission strategy, but it tends to respond with renewed rhetoric rather than reconsidering its approach.

La UE tiene muchos planes para fomentar la equidad y la justicia espacial. Sin embargo, cada uno tiene puntos de referencia distintos, y es difícil encontrar una visión global. Para demostrarlo, este estudio analizó dos estrategias sectoriales para identificar sus implicaciones en las estrategias de justicia espacial. La educación se centra en la inversión temprana y la reforma de los servicios públicos. La salud prioriza las acciones intersectoriales para abordar los 'determinantes sociales' más allá del control de los servicios sanitarios. Ambos sectores advierten del peligro de equiparar la cohesión territorial o la justicia espacial con la igualdad de acceso a los servicios públicos. Estos hallazgos podrían informar la estrategia de la Comisión Europea, pero ésta tiende a responder con una retórica renovada en lugar de reconsiderar su enfoque.

The COVID-19 exams fiasco across the UK: four nations and two windows of opportunity.

All four UK and devolved governments performed a 'U-turn' on their COVID-19 school exams replacement policies. After cancelling exams, they sought teacher estimates on their grades, but supported an algorithm to standardise the results. When the results produced a public outcry over unfair consequences, they initially defended their decision but reverted quickly to teacher assessment. We explain these developments by comparing two 'windows of opportunity' overseen by four separate governments, in which the definition of the problem, feasibility of each solution, and motive of policymakers to select one over the other lurched dramatically within a week of the exams results. These experiences highlight the confluence of events and choices and the timing and order of choice. A policy solution that had been rejected during the first window, and would have been criticised heavily if chosen first, became a lifeline during the second. As such, while it is important to understand why the standardisation process went so wrong, we focus on why the policymaking process went so wrong. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y.

The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking.

Background: COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between such expectations and outcomes, and similar inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish how education researchers, drawing on policy concepts and theories, explain and seek to address this problem. Methods: A qualitative systematic review (2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an immersive and inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how policy theory articles inform it. Results: 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. Our comparison with a review of health equity research highlights distinctive elements in education. First, education equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although some countries and international organisations have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique 'neoliberal' approaches that dominate policymaking at the expense of 'social justice'. Third, more studies provide 'bottom-up' analysis of 'implementation gaps'. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions: Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar role. Compared to health research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on technical design issues. There is high certainty that current neoliberal policies are failing, but low certainty about how to challenge them successfully.