The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking

Background : COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between expectations and outcomes, and inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish, from education research, how policymakers seek equitable outcomes. Our study emulates its partner review of ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) to ask: How does education equity research use policy theory to understand policymaking? Methods : A qualitative systematic review (from 2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results : 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. The comparison with HIAP highlights distinctive elements of education research. First, educational equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although countries like the US, and organisations like the World Bank, have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique the narrow equity definitions – focusing on performance – that dominate policymaking. Third, more studies provide ‘bottom-up’ analysis of ‘implementation gaps’. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions : Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar task. Compared to HIAP research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on delivering top-down aims. Most studies criticise current educational equity aims and expect them to fail.