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

IF 1.1 3区社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

British Politics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-02-19 DOI:10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y

Sean Kippin, Paul Cairney

{"title":"The COVID-19 exams fiasco across the UK: four nations and two windows of opportunity.","authors":"Sean Kippin, Paul Cairney","doi":"10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46067,"journal":{"name":"British Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7894241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

英国各地的 COVID-19 考试惨败：四个国家和两个机会之窗。

所有四个英国政府和地方政府都对其 COVID-19 学校考试替代政策进行了 "大转弯"。在取消考试后，他们寻求教师对成绩的估计，但支持用算法来统一成绩。当结果引起公众对不公平后果的强烈抗议时，他们起初为自己的决定辩护，但很快又恢复了教师评估。我们通过比较由四个不同政府监管的两个 "机会之窗 "来解释这些事态的发展，在这两个 "机会之窗 "中，问题的定义、每种解决方案的可行性以及决策者选择其中一种方案的动机都在考试结果公布后的一周内发生了巨大的变化。这些经历凸显了各种事件和选择的交织，以及选择的时机和顺序。在第一个窗口期被否决的政策方案，如果首先选择会受到严厉批评，但在第二个窗口期却成了救命稻草。因此，了解标准化过程为何会出现如此大的失误固然重要，但我们更关注决策过程为何会出现如此大的失误：在线版本包含补充材料，可查阅 10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

British Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： British Politics offers the only forum explicitly designed to promote research in British political studies, and seeks to provide a counterweight to the growing fragmentation of this field during recent years. To this end, the journal aims to promote a more holistic understanding of British politics by encouraging a closer integration between theoretical and empirical research, between historical and contemporary analyses, and by fostering a conception of British politics as a broad and multi-disciplinary field of study. This incorporates a range of sub-fields, including psephology, policy analysis, regional studies, comparative politics, institutional analysis, political theory, political economy, historical analysis, cultural studies and social policy. While recognising the validity and the importance of research into specific aspects of British politics, the journal takes it to be a guiding principle that such research is more useful, and indeed meaningful, if it is related to the field of British politics in a broader and fuller sense. The scope of the journal will therefore be broad, incorporating a range of research papers and review articles from all theoretical perspectives, and on all aspects of British politics, including policy developments, institutional change and political behaviour. Priority will, however, be given to contributions which link contemporary developments in British politics to theoretical and/or historical analyses. The aim is as much to encourage the development of empirical research that is theoretically rigorous and informed, as it is to encourage the empirical application of theoretical work (or at least to encourage theorists to explicitly signify how their work could be applied in an empirical manner).