What’s the point of writing policy documents which are obscure, jargon-filled verbiage?
If the point of writing policy documents is to communicate policy, perhaps even with a view of having the policy implemented, it has to be said that the Department for Education (DfE) in England fails abysmally. Its documentation is abstruse, steeped in corporate jargon, full of agendas being driven and aims being delivered.
Much like the speeches of many politicians, you can read a DfE document and then be hard-pressed to recall a single thing it said.
This would be bad enough, but come on: it’s the Department for Education we’re talking about here, you know, the department which published the National Curriculum specifications for the subject of English, one of the aims of which is:
“to ensure that all pupils:
write clearly, accurately and coherently, adapting their language and style in and for a range of contexts, purposes and audiences”
I suspect the aim of the documentation is not to impart policy, much less have it implemented. Rather, the aim is probably one or more of the following:
A need to look as if policy is being communicated.
A need to tick a box (possibly for a performance appraisal or re-election, depending on who is doing the ticking) that says: “Write a policy document”.
Backside-covering.
A need to produce verbiage which can be interpreted in multiple ways, for the purposes of being able to point out to teachers and others, “Well, as we said/announced/emphasised in our policy document…”.
The facts speak for themselves: a couple of textual analyses I’ve undertaken clearly show that the DfE lacks even the most rudimentary skills to make itself understood. You can read my report here:
Report On DfE Communication Skills: Could Do Better
I rest my case.