[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-600063-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-600063-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","current-issues-in-comparative-education-cice-volume-23-issue-1-winter-2021-policy-discourse-analysis","Current Issues in Comparative Education (CICE) - Volume 23 - Issue 1 - Winter 2021 Policy Discourse Analysis","","Critical discourse analysis of UK Department for International Development (DfID) education aid policy documents (2010–2018) examines how ideologies, political priorities, and power dynamics are communicated implicitly. The article argues the texts explicitly or implicitly downplay the state’s role in delivering high-quality education and instead frame the private sector as more effective in developing countries. It contextualizes UK bilateral and multilateral aid and links donor priorities to education outcomes, making the underlying assumptions in the written policies more explicit.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/current-issues-in-comparative-education-cice-volume-23-issue-1-winter-2021-policy-discourse-analysis/600063/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/current-issues-in-comparative-education-cice-volume-23-issue-1-winter-2021-policy-discourse-analysis/600063.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"nayy☆","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the main purpose of the article?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"To use critical discourse analysis to unpack ideologies, political priorities, and power dynamics embedded in DfID’s official education policy documents, especially assumptions about the state’s deprioritized role.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Which time span and documents does the analysis cover?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The article analyzes four primary education policy documents issued between 2010 and 2018.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What argument does the article make about the state versus the private sector?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It argues that DfID’s rhetoric reflects a perception that the private sector is more effective than the public sector at providing high-quality education in developing countries.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},600063,1792210831,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":108},962090893153,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Current Issues in Comparative Education (CICE), Volume 23, Issue 1, Winter 2021  \nA Policy Shift from State to Non-state in Education Aid: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the UK’s Development  \nPolicies  \nThu Ya Aung  \nTexas State University  \nRolf Straubhaar  \nTexas State University  \nDue to the historically outsized influence of the United Kingdom’s development assistance office on international aid, a better understanding of the underlying ideologies and political priorities guiding this agency would help the larger aid community more clearly understand the power dynamics and structural context of the development industry. However, these ideologies and dynamics are often left implicit and are not always easily understood. The purpose of this article is to use critical discourse analysis to unpack the ideologies, political priorities and power dynamics present in DfID’s official education policy documents. In so doing, we make the implicit explicit, and begin to unpack the implicit meanings and assumptions that are present in these written texts, particularly regarding the deprioritized role of the state in providing a high-quality education. We argue that this analysis reveals an underlying perception within DfID that the private sector is more effective at providing public education in developing countries than the public sector.  \nThe Department for International Development (DfID)i was a department under the United Kingdom (UK) Government responsible for administering UK official development assistance (ODA) . The UK stood in third place after the United States and Germany among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee list of donor countries, contributing 12.7% of total global ODA in 2019ii (FCDO, 2020). The UK contributes its ODA as both bilateral aid (i.e. aid earmarked for particular aid-receiving countries) and multilateral aid (i.e. as a part of an unearmarked pooled global fund) . In 2019, the UK’s bilateral development aid accounted for 67.5% of its total ODA, and it saw an overall upward trend from 63.2% in 2015 (FCDO, 2020) . Bilateral ODA allows the donor country (in this case, the UK) to choose the priority areas they will support in aid-receiving countries, reflecting more directly the priorities of their citizens and taxpayers, while multilateral ODA is generally considered politically neutral (Kilmister, 2016) . In 2019, Africa received the largest share (50.6 %) of the UK’s bilateral ODA, followed by Asia (41.8%), Americas (4.1%), Europe (3.2%), and the Pacific (0.3%). Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan were the top 3 countries receiving the UK’s country-specific bilateral ODA (FCDO, 2020) .  \nSince DfID is among the largest donors listed by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, its underlying ideologies and political priorities have the potential to exert  \n© 2021, Current Issues in Comparative Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Current Issues in Comparative Education 23(1), 61-76.  \nAung & Straubhaar  \nenormous influence on education policy in aid-receiving developing countries. However, while understanding these underlying ideologies and priorities would help aid-receiving countries, scholars and lay observers to better understand the larger aid policy environment, they are typically not stated explicitly so as to be easily understood. In response, the purpose of this article is to unpack these ideologies and priorities using DfID official policy documents, with the goal of making the implicit explicit. To do this, we use critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995) to analyze DfID’s four primary education policy documents issued between 2010 and 2018, with the purpose of examining and unpacking the implicit meanings and assumptions that are present in these written texts.  \nTo reach this aim, we will first ground this work in the established literature, reviewing the growing role the private sector","cbCaibHvp9j6rCTI","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibHvp9j6rCTI","pdf",191901,16,"English","# A Policy Shift from State to Non-state in Education Aid\n## Purpose and analytical approach\n## Context of UK development assistance (DfID, ODA)\n## Private sector in education of developing countries\n## Low-cost private schools and regulatory spectrum","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the article?\",\"answer\":\"To use critical discourse analysis to unpack ideologies, political priorities, and power dynamics embedded in DfID’s official education policy documents, especially assumptions about the state’s deprioritized role.\"},{\"question\":\"Which time span and documents does the analysis cover?\",\"answer\":\"The article analyzes four primary education policy documents issued between 2010 and 2018.\"},{\"question\":\"What argument does the article make about the state versus the private sector?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that DfID’s rhetoric reflects a perception that the private sector is more effective than the public sector at providing high-quality education in developing countries.\"}]","Current Issues in Comparative Education (CICE) - Volume 23 - Issue 1 - Winter 2021 Policy Discourse Analysis | PDF",1792089960]