This paper focuses on negotiation process in education policy using case study of preparation “Strategy of the Educational Policy of the Czech Republic until 2030+” (Strategy 2030+). My aim is to apply discourse analysis on related texts and demonstrate on this case the “policy conflict and deliberation in the network society” (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003).

Czech Republic after 1989 embarked on transformation journey that included decentralization and education reform. Czech Republic is a member state of OECD from 1994, continually participates in international surveys as PISA and PIAAC and integrates OECDs recommendations to its education policy. Education policy in the Czech Republic is declared to be led by general aims and purposes described in strategic documents, which are continually prepared and revised from 1994 (MSMT 2009).

Drafts of Czech education strategic documents are typically once in a decade written by “expert teams” led by academics. Final document is usually prepared by the Ministry of Education and approved by the government. Education policy documents follow OECD recommendations, which can be traced in recurrent themes and in emphasizing equity and competencies (in the sense of being able to understand, interpret and apply knowledge and skills in various situations).

Strategy 2030+ was prepared from 2019 to 2020. For Strategy 2030+, expert team led by sociologist Arnost Vesely decided to involve diverse actors of education policy to the process (teachers, parents, officials, representatives of "resort institutions"). These actors had many opportunities to participate (conferences, round tables, commenting of the draft version). In parallel and in co-operation with the expert team, Institution of education association (NNO) decided to prepare a survey for identifying key themes of education policy using the Delphi method (Pazour, M. et al. 2019).

The expert team worked from January to November 2019 in a participatory mode helding round tables, conferences and using data from Delphi. Until the end of 2019 it was possible to comment on the draft version of the expert team. Ministry of culture presented preliminary version on June 2020, final version was approved by the government in October 2020. Comments as well as all versions are made public. Traces of various actors /authors can also be analysed by textual comparison of preliminary draft and final version of the document. 

Open process of strategy preparation created unique opportunity to map potential objectives of education policy, styles of reasoning and different frameworks.

Strategy 2030+ (draft version as well as final version) distinguishes between strategic objectives and strategic lines. The strategic objectives represent what is to be achieved:

1. Focusing education more on acquiring the competencies needed for active civil, professional and personal life
2. Reduce inequalities in access to quality education and enable the maximum development of the potential of pupils and students

The strategic lines represent the means and ways through which the above mentioned objectives should be fulfilled and implemented.

I will look for answers to questions such as:

• What persuasions about equity and competencies the actors involved expressed?
• How actors argue about those persuasions?
• Did actors mention opportunities to fulfil or evaluate these goals in their activities, and if so, how?

I will apply the research design of a case study using qualitative methods. By case I understand the network of actors involved in preparation and possibly implementation of the document “Strategy 2030+”. Besides analysing the draft, preliminary and final version of the strategy and documents from the “comment procedure”, I will also analyse open questions of data files obtained through the Delphi method, which also contain a set of goals and their rationale. As stated above, the Delphi survey was prepared as one of the inputs for the expert team of Strategy 2030+ (and data collection took place in spring 2019). Delphi survey was held in two phases. In the preparatory phase, potential key themes of education policy were collected among experts (92 respondents, 5 open questions). Respondents could name up to 5 themes and justify their choices. Based on their answers 39 propositions (potential key themes – education goals) were prepared for the second phase of the survey. In the second phase, scope of survey was broadened (N=275 respondents). Besides academics, employees of the state administration, including employees of contributory organizations of the Ministry of Education, school employees and representatives of NGOs were addressed in the second phase. Respondents were supposed to declare their agreement or disagreement with the propositions and prioritize them. They could also deliberate on their answers in comments section. There are studies in the Czech Republic concerning the strategic activities of ministerial officials and their understanding of evidence (eg. Vesely, Ochrana and Nekola 2018). According to the authors public officials and academics differ in their discourse and way of reasoning, even though they do not differ that much in academic degrees attained: “public officials do not show commitment to scientific evidence, but to the administrative data “evidence” (Vesely, Ochrana and Nekola 2018: 231). What is even more significant, public officials are interested in ““evidence” that can be used to legitimize the political goals and that support the negotiated consent on the policy” (ibidem). I will try to apply frame-critical policy analysis (Rein and Schön 1996), because I find it necessary to take into consideration specific practice. Both policy of “equity” and “competencies” presumably open controversies, and some frames of actors might be deeply rooted in action (eg. financing of vocational education, curricular documents, national tests).

Vesely, Ochrana and Nekola´s study poses important implicit question for my endeavour. If actors of education policy follow similar patterns, equity as well as competencies needed for active civil, professional and personal life probably do not have common indicators (evidence) that would both academics and ministerial officials agree on (as the political practice itself indicate). In the light of this study, open process of deliberation of strategic objectives and lines leading to these objectives might be in certain sense a performative act, an attempt to “do things with words” or at least to make other actors involved. I expect different understanding of both equity and competencies among the actors. I also expect the final text of the Strategy less coherent and more polyphonous than the first “expert” version. Another important change between preliminary and final version are shifts in strategic lines with impact on accountability (i. e. who is to be responsible, if governance, or schools and teachers, or parents and students). Themes prioritized by Delphi do not play major role in the final document, which is partially related to the shifts in accountability.

Gilovich, Thomas, ed., Griffin, Dale W., ed. A Kahneman, Daniel, ed. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. xvi, 857 stran. ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8. Greger, D., Simonová, J. Straková, J. eds. (2015). Spravedlivý start? Nerovné šance v předškolním vzdělávání a při přechodu na základní školu [A fair starting point? Unequal opportunities in pre-school education and in the transition to primary school.]. Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Pedagogická fakulta. Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490934. Kohoutek, Jan & Nekola, Martin. (2016). Politizace pracovníků ministerstev v České republice dle pracovních pozic: současná teorie a praxe [Politicization of Ministry Officials in the Czech Republic by Work Positions: Present-Day Theory and Practice]. Sociální studia / Social Studies. 13. 85–99. MŠMT. Zpráva o vývoji českého školství od listopadu 1989 (v oblasti regionálního školství) Č.j.: 25461/2009 – 20. [Report on the development of Czech Education System from 1989 (regional level)]On-line: www.msmt.cz/file/10376_1_1/download/ [cit. 2020-12-25]. Pazour, M., Pokorný, O., Pýchová, S., & Straková, J. (2019): Identifikace prioritních témat ve vzdělávání. Šetření metodou Delphi [Identification of priority themes in Education. Research based n Delphi Method]. On-line: http://www.skav.cz/ [cit. 2020-12-25]. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104. doi: 10.1007/bf02832235. Vesely, Arnost & Ochrana, František & Nekola, Martin. (2018). When Evidence is not Taken for Granted: The Use and Perception of “Evidence” in the Czech Republic Ministries. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. 11. 219-234. 10.2478/nispa-2018-0020.