Los mecanismos encubiertos del discurso de las políticas educativas: Desenmascarando los discursos y estrategias discursivas de expertos políticos a favor o en contra del racismo y clasismo en educación

Translated title of the contribution: The covert mechanisms of education policy discourse: Unmasking policy insiders’ discourses and discursive strategies in upholding or challenging racism and classism in education

Melanie Bertrand, Wendy Y. Perez, John Rogers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Policy insiders across party lines increasingly acknowledge educational “gaps,” yet they talk about this inequity in very different ways. Though some critique disparities through a structural lens, others use deficit discourse, blaming families of color and working-class families for educational outcomes. This study examines how state policy insiders explain educational inequity, shedding light on the complex relationship between language and the maintenance of systemic racism and classism in education. Drawing upon a unique data set of interviews with 50 policy insiders in one state in the United States, we found three main discourses used to explain inequity in education, each of which cited a different cause: 1) structural inequity, 2) perceived deficits of families and communities, and 3) teachers unions and teacher seniority. Policy insiders used often-veiled discursive strategies to advance their discourses. For instance, those that used deficit discourse: 1) asserted that those most negatively impacted by inequity cause inequity; 2) strengthened deficit discourse by blending it with one or both of the other two discourses; and 3) made inequity appear natural through the use of several substrategies, including obscuring the identity of those harmed by inequity. These strategies allowed some policy insiders to strengthen deficit discourse, divert attention from structural issues, and characterize themselves positively while advancing racist and classist ideas. These findings have compelling implications in terms of possibilities for policy changes supportive of educational equity.

Original languageSpanish
JournalEducation Policy Analysis Archives
Volume23
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 28 2015

Fingerprint

racism
deficit
discourse
education
cause
teacher
working class
equity
interview
language
community

Keywords

  • Educational equity
  • Policy discourse
  • Race
  • Social class

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{155b6c2953b941a0b2631f2e36620943,
title = "Los mecanismos encubiertos del discurso de las pol{\'i}ticas educativas: Desenmascarando los discursos y estrategias discursivas de expertos pol{\'i}ticos a favor o en contra del racismo y clasismo en educaci{\'o}n",
abstract = "Policy insiders across party lines increasingly acknowledge educational “gaps,” yet they talk about this inequity in very different ways. Though some critique disparities through a structural lens, others use deficit discourse, blaming families of color and working-class families for educational outcomes. This study examines how state policy insiders explain educational inequity, shedding light on the complex relationship between language and the maintenance of systemic racism and classism in education. Drawing upon a unique data set of interviews with 50 policy insiders in one state in the United States, we found three main discourses used to explain inequity in education, each of which cited a different cause: 1) structural inequity, 2) perceived deficits of families and communities, and 3) teachers unions and teacher seniority. Policy insiders used often-veiled discursive strategies to advance their discourses. For instance, those that used deficit discourse: 1) asserted that those most negatively impacted by inequity cause inequity; 2) strengthened deficit discourse by blending it with one or both of the other two discourses; and 3) made inequity appear natural through the use of several substrategies, including obscuring the identity of those harmed by inequity. These strategies allowed some policy insiders to strengthen deficit discourse, divert attention from structural issues, and characterize themselves positively while advancing racist and classist ideas. These findings have compelling implications in terms of possibilities for policy changes supportive of educational equity.",
keywords = "Educational equity, Policy discourse, Race, Social class",
author = "Melanie Bertrand and Perez, {Wendy Y.} and John Rogers",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "28",
doi = "10.14507/epaa.v23.2068",
language = "Spanish",
volume = "23",
journal = "Education Policy Analysis Archives",
issn = "1068-2341",
publisher = "Arizona State University",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Los mecanismos encubiertos del discurso de las políticas educativas

T2 - Desenmascarando los discursos y estrategias discursivas de expertos políticos a favor o en contra del racismo y clasismo en educación

AU - Bertrand, Melanie

AU - Perez, Wendy Y.

AU - Rogers, John

PY - 2015/9/28

Y1 - 2015/9/28

N2 - Policy insiders across party lines increasingly acknowledge educational “gaps,” yet they talk about this inequity in very different ways. Though some critique disparities through a structural lens, others use deficit discourse, blaming families of color and working-class families for educational outcomes. This study examines how state policy insiders explain educational inequity, shedding light on the complex relationship between language and the maintenance of systemic racism and classism in education. Drawing upon a unique data set of interviews with 50 policy insiders in one state in the United States, we found three main discourses used to explain inequity in education, each of which cited a different cause: 1) structural inequity, 2) perceived deficits of families and communities, and 3) teachers unions and teacher seniority. Policy insiders used often-veiled discursive strategies to advance their discourses. For instance, those that used deficit discourse: 1) asserted that those most negatively impacted by inequity cause inequity; 2) strengthened deficit discourse by blending it with one or both of the other two discourses; and 3) made inequity appear natural through the use of several substrategies, including obscuring the identity of those harmed by inequity. These strategies allowed some policy insiders to strengthen deficit discourse, divert attention from structural issues, and characterize themselves positively while advancing racist and classist ideas. These findings have compelling implications in terms of possibilities for policy changes supportive of educational equity.

AB - Policy insiders across party lines increasingly acknowledge educational “gaps,” yet they talk about this inequity in very different ways. Though some critique disparities through a structural lens, others use deficit discourse, blaming families of color and working-class families for educational outcomes. This study examines how state policy insiders explain educational inequity, shedding light on the complex relationship between language and the maintenance of systemic racism and classism in education. Drawing upon a unique data set of interviews with 50 policy insiders in one state in the United States, we found three main discourses used to explain inequity in education, each of which cited a different cause: 1) structural inequity, 2) perceived deficits of families and communities, and 3) teachers unions and teacher seniority. Policy insiders used often-veiled discursive strategies to advance their discourses. For instance, those that used deficit discourse: 1) asserted that those most negatively impacted by inequity cause inequity; 2) strengthened deficit discourse by blending it with one or both of the other two discourses; and 3) made inequity appear natural through the use of several substrategies, including obscuring the identity of those harmed by inequity. These strategies allowed some policy insiders to strengthen deficit discourse, divert attention from structural issues, and characterize themselves positively while advancing racist and classist ideas. These findings have compelling implications in terms of possibilities for policy changes supportive of educational equity.

KW - Educational equity

KW - Policy discourse

KW - Race

KW - Social class

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943613994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943613994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14507/epaa.v23.2068

DO - 10.14507/epaa.v23.2068

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84943613994

VL - 23

JO - Education Policy Analysis Archives

JF - Education Policy Analysis Archives

SN - 1068-2341

ER -