In the current international policy milieu, deliberative democracy, defined as ‘representative public deliberation to improve collective decision making and strengthen democracy’ (OECD, 2021, p.5), is valued for its equitable and inclusive dimensions. It is seen as a method by which public participation is harnessed to influence and shape decision-making and policy development ​(Bua & Escobar, 2018; Smith, 2009)​ and it is increasingly being offered across Europe as a counterbalance to a rising distrust in authoritarian and centralised governance ​(Butzlaff & Messinger-Zimmer, 2020)​.  

Consulting with and gathering the perspectives of a range of stakeholders and community-wide voices en route to shaping policy for education, amongst other social institutions, has been utiised as a method for ensuring that centralised policymaking remains accountable to the people whose lives or work it touches ​(Fischer, 2016)​. It is also presented as a way to encourage policymakers to engage with ethical concerns related to meaningful democratic representation and human flourishing (Lees-Marshment, Huff & Bendle, 2020). 

In Scotland, education policymaking is usually delegated to national working groups and developed in partnership through consultation with networks of stakeholders, often with government retaining a governing role. It has been acknowledged that the Scottish style of education policymaking is somewhat distinct from other jurisdictions in the UK. This 'partnership' approach is based on a national commitment to social justice, inclusion and democracy (Hulme & Kennedy, 2016) and great effort is made to involve a wide range of affected actors in a number of ways (Humes, 2020). Despite this, there is a tendency to rely on prominent ‘insider’ actors, who are often known to each other personally and/or professionally (Humes, 1997) and who subscribe to a set of values, traditions and social norms, which can make it difficult for new actors, and new ideas, to enter this space. While these features and concerns might be a result of the nature of policymaking in a small country, it is important to look beneath the surface in order to question the assumed relationship between partnership models and democratic legitimacy in policymaking. 

The General Teaching Council (GTC) for Scotland aligns itself with the Scottish style of policymaking described above, in that it seeks to make its policy development work increasingly inclusive and representative of affected actors. This paper will explore the extent to which these underpinning principles for policymaking can be observed in the case of the recently refreshed GTC Scotland Professional Standards. To do so, we conceptualise the wider network of stakeholders engaged through consultation as a ‘governance network’ (Rhodes, 1997). Using Sørensen & Torfing’s (2018) anchorage points for democratic legitimacy as a framework for policy analysis, we interrogate the existing narrative around consensus policymaking in Scotland and consider the extent to which the process used by GTC Scotland reflects these principles. We then reflect on the contribution that this analysis makes to ongoing thinking about policy development in Scotland and internationally.  

For a governance network to perform ‘democratically’, Sørensen and Torfing (2018) argue it must meet four ‘anchorage points’. Firstly, it is important that the governance network is metagoverned by democratically elected actors. As well as investigating who becomes a ‘metagoverner’, we must look at network-design, the formulation of goals and the nature of member participation. Network membership must provide fair and equal representation of affected groups: those upon which the intended policy change will directly impact, in this case, teachers and those who support them in education. Network accountability is concerned with the extent to which network activity is made publicly available so that it can be shared with and scrutinised by those upon whom it will directly impact. The final anchorage point relates to democratic rules and the extent to which all members of the network can participate. A shared understanding of rules and processes, as well as equal opportunities for participation and engagement, are essential. The data collection was considered in four phases, beginning with a commissioned literature review, which gave evidence of current practice and thinking about Professional Standards and might be recognised as a first step towards an element of ‘democratic legitimacy’ (Sørensen & Torfing, 2018). The next phase involved the convening of working groups drawing once more on the use of experts to inform development and create a dataset for writing groups to develop a first draft of the suite of Professional Standards. This draft was subjected to a full public consultation, the analysis of which helped improve the suite of Professional Standards before finally focus groups offered refinements to create a refreshed suite of Professional Standard, which were approved by GTC Scotland Council and was launched in January 2021. Using the criteria from Sørensen and Torfing’s (2018) framework and focusing on the moments described above, this paper analyses the extensive qualitative dataset generated through the policymaking activity described, namely: the literature review; reports and minutes from the strategic group, the operational groups, writing groups; the CIS commissioned report; the full public consultation and a number of focus groups. This dataset offers a unique overview and insight into the processes used by GTC Scotland to develop policy.

From this critical analysis of the policymaking process used in the refresh of the GTC Scotland Professional Standards for teachers, we hope to offer an informed perspective of policymaking. Drawing on the development of Professional Standards as a case study, we highlight the complexity involved in attempting to co-develop inclusive and representative policy. Using the democratic ‘anchors’ (Sørensen, & Torfing, 2018), we aim to demonstrate the different ways in which widespread representation through extensive stakeholder engagement of affected actors can substantively inform policymaking. Our paper provides space for debate to inform the iterative process of data gathering, prior to policy intentions being committed to policy text and the creation of ‘policy technologies’ (Torrance & Forde, 2017), which are subsequently translated through the different levels of the education system, ultimately to be enacted by teachers in classroom. However, in this specific case, the process of ‘recontextualisation’ begins with initial consultation, and it is for this reason that we examine consultation processes in detail. This conceptualisation could offer an understanding of the support required by democratic education systems around the world to enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voice across the education community, to add to the policy community and ‘close the gap between policy intention and life in schools’ (Murphy, 2014, p.88). Through a better understanding of a democratic policymaking process, we can find a better balance between the intentions of policy makers, the needs of the professional education community and the views of the public and stakeholders, to create a policy landscape that is meaningful and manageable to achieve the system-wide objective of supporting all of our children and young people to flourish.

Bua, A. & Escobar, O., (2018) Participatory-deliberative processes and public policy agendas: lessons for policy and practice. Policy Design and Practice, 1(2), pp.126-140. Butzlaff, F. & Messinger-Zimmer, S., (2020) Undermining or defending democracy? The consequences of distrust for democratic attitudes and participation. Critical Policy Studies, 14(3), pp.249-266. Fischer, H. W., (2016) Beyond Participation and Accountability: Theorizing Representation in Local Democracy. World Development, Volume 86, pp.111-122. Lees-Marshment, J., Huff, A.D. & Bendle, N. (2020) A Social Commons Ethos in Public Policy-Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, pp.761-778 Hulme, M. & Kennedy, A. (2016) 'Teacher education in Scotland: Consensus politics and ‘the Scottish policy style’. In G. Beauchamp, et al. (eds) Teacher Education in Times of Change: Responding to Challenges Across the UK and Ireland. Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 91-108. Humes, W. (1997) Analysing the Policy Process. Scottish Educational Review. 29(1), pp.20-29. Murphy, D. (2014). Schooling Scotland: Education, equity and community. Argyll Publishing. OECD, (2021) Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12, Paris: OECD Publishing. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press RIZVI, F. & KEMMIS, S. (1987) Dilemmas of Reform (Geelong, Deakin University Press) Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2018) The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration. 96(2), pp.302-317 Torrance, D., & Forde, C. (2017). Redefining what it means to be a teacher through professional standards: Implications for continuing teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 110-126.