A Discourse Analysis of the Development of Educational Policy:Taking the New Guidelines for High School Curriculum as an Example

[[abstract]]Abstract The purpose of this research is to explore the process of the development of the new guidelines for high school curriculum using the discourse analysis method. It is conducted in an attempt to seek a much reasonable interrelation as well as to make possible the highest integration of the interests of all policy stakeholders. There are five purposes of this study: (1) to analyze the issues of the new guidelines for high school curriculum; (2) to explore each stakeholder’s discourse about the issues of the new guidelines for high school curriculum; (3) to analyze the exercise of power in the process of the development of the new guidelines for high school curriculum;(4) to criticize and reflect on the process of the development of the new guidelines for high school curriculum. Finally, based on the findings and discoveries obtained from this study, conclusions are drawn and suggestions are provided to the future policy development. In order to achieve the above-mentioned purpose, discourse analysis is adopted as the research approach. Interviews, documents, and news articles are used for the data collection. Based on the data analysis, research findings are as follows: Ⅰ. The issues of the new guidelines for high school curriculum result from the differences in the position and interests of each stakeholder. Ⅱ. Each stakeholder’s discourse about the issues of the new guidelines for high school curriculum represents a voice of protest against the mal-distribution of the advantages as well as the inequality of the power relationship. Ⅲ. In the process of the development of the new guidelines for high school curriculum, people being closer to the core of power could exercise much more diverse power strategies than others. This displays the asymmetry of the power relationship. Ⅳ. The development is lack of a prospect planning, which not only makes teachers, parents and students feel unease when they face education reform, but also reduces their willingness to cooperate. Ⅴ. The development is lack of adequate evaluative data, which brings about a structural bias, making its planning by the commissioners more difficult. Ⅵ. The development disregards the micropolitical relationship among communication and interaction. People of high position still play a key role on decision-making at the cost of other stakeholders’ benefits. Ⅶ. The Ministry of Education not only has little understanding of or concern about the cultural meaning of an individuals’ life, but also lacks a complete fallback- planning package, which hinders school educators from implementing policy. Ⅷ. The commissioners of the new guidelines for high school curriculum are too accustomed to their own presumption to call it in question, and have little understanding of or empathy for the schools’ conditions and their educators, which enlarges the gap between policy goals and its implementation in schools. Ⅸ. Sectionalism of each specialist or teacher contributes to a bias concerning the exercise of power, and brings about battles for political interests during the development, which sacrifices the interests of the learning subject. Ⅹ. The educators in school hold fest to a bias for old culture, and don’t have much chance to take part in the development, which delays the time of its implementation. XI. The issues concerning the development should be solved by establishing an ideal means of communication.