Education policy analysis is a complex process involving the study of

policy formulation, the reconstruction of contexts, and various elements in the

implementation cycle. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the
evolving power dynamics and the influence of different social actors in
decision-making. This paper discusses the role of discourse and language in
decision-making, with a focus on the inherent power relations within education
policy. The paper argues that special and inclusive education policies are
shaped by unequal power relationships, and discourse analysis is crucial for
understanding and challenging these dynamics.
Acknowledging the contradictions and ambiguous nature of policies,
recognizing that policy texts can be vague and open to interpretation, the
paper highlights the need to identify dominant discourses that reveal the
unequal power relationships underpinning the decision-making process. It also
underscores the role of discourse analysis in exposing the exclusion and
marginalization of children assumed to have special educational needs. It
emphasizes the need for a critical analysis and challenge of the discourses
defining "needs" and "disadvantage" in decision-making.
The paper utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the primary
methodology to study power dynamics and discourse in inclusive education
decision-making. CDA allows researchers to delve into the linguistic features
of discourse and reveal dominant relationships with the aim of introducing
transformation.
The paper also mentions the use of traditional qualitative analysis methods
alongside CDA, recognizing that they offer possibilities while seeking
alternative and liberating analytical approaches. The research process involves
a comprehensive analysis of the education decision-making process,
investigating the complexity and interactive factors in policy formulation,
context reconstruction, and the implementation cycle. The goal is to unravel
and examine instances or snapshots of the constitutive elements of the
decision-making cycle and identify the ever-changing power dynamics in a
complex manner. This approach also reveals how policy frameworks can strip
children with assumed special educational needs (SEN) of their power within
specific socio-political contexts. The analysis highlights the interplay of
unequal power relations leading to the construction of discourses around
"normal" and "special educational needs."
Using CDA makes it possible to deconstruct and expose the historical
urgencies of special education thinking, constructed, disseminated, and
sustained through discourses. The paper mentions the need to challenge the
interactions of dominant discourses involved in shaping what may seem "neutral"
or "natural" but has widespread impacts on policy formulation and
dissemination.
This study aims to go beyond the dominant assumptions and concepts of
special education thinking and makes it clear that seeking inclusive discourses
is a challenging and unsettling task.
 I have also considered potential limitations of this paper. It extensively
explores the interactions between unequal power relations and the construction
of discourses around "normal" and "special educational needs," but it does not
explicitly discuss any limitations or potential drawbacks of the research.
Without further information, it's challenging to determine the specific
limitations of the paper, such as sample size, generalizability of findings, or
potential biases. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the limitations
of this paper, further research or other sources may be needed.
In the future, it would be beneficial to further investigate specific
discourse strategies and language used in policy documents that have
perpetuated unequal power relations in special education. Comparative studies
in different socio-political contexts would help us understand the differences
in power relations and discourse structures within special education.