当前，我国制定的许多教育政策不能有效推动教育实践的变革，教育政策与教育实践的关系经常处于困境之中；我国教育政策研究缺乏解释教育政策与实践关系的理论工具。在我国教育改革与发展的转型时期，研究教育政策与教育实践的关系有助于丰富中国特色社会主义教育发展道路的理论成果，有利于拓展教育政策学科的研究视域，提升我国教育政策实践的有效性。依据实践哲学和新制度主义的相关理论，运用新范式方法论，本研究在对教育政策的本质与教育实践的本质进行深入探讨的基础上，剖析了教育政策与教育实践关系的本质与过程；并通过西部地区人才培养特别项目的政策案例分析来反思我国教育政策实践中的困境，抽象出教育政策与教育实践关系的变量体系，最后针对当前我国的问题提出改进两者关系的若干策略。教育政策是教育领域中行为准则或政治措施组成的政策文本及其总和；是调整和分配各种有关教育利益、以实现人的自由发展进而促进社会发展的工具；是教育利益表达与整合的一个动态连续的主动选择过程；在活动过程和利益分配方面具有不同于一般公共政策的特殊性。从本质上来说，教育实践是教育实践主体通过对象性活动改造主观和客观的过程。其特征表现为情景性、智慧性和反思性。这些特征决定着教育实践的逻辑并非是理论话语中的那么清晰，而是一种不严密的逻辑。教育政策与教育实践关系既有历史的事实依据，又有清晰的理论逻辑。从事实的角度来看，一方面政策科学的诞生与发展是服务于人类社会实践的需要；另一方面我国教育政策实践范式的转变也是在不断回应教育实践的客观要求。从理论的角度来看，一方面教育政策具有变革教育实践的主体性动力源泉，另一方面教育实践同样具有客体性的依据。有了以上的事实和理论依据，加之教育实践能动性的发现，我们就不难发现教育政策与教育实践关系的本质——教育政策与教育实践的双向对象化。从过程的角度来理解，教育政策与教育实践的双向对象化表现为一连串“教育决策——政策评估与反馈——政策调整”的周期所构成的不断循环的“链条”。其中，决策与反馈是教育政策过程的关键，同时，教育政策过程表现出一定的纵横层级，并且这种决策与反馈的层级与教育政策活动的开放性紧密关联。通过对西部地区人才培养特别项目的案例分析发现，教育政策与教育实践的关系面临着很多困境。这种困境往往表现为政策标准与政策价值取向的偏离、政策工具与实践需求不对称、政策目标与决策权限分布不匹配、政策利益分配与实践者利益的错位、政策目标与政策实践者能力的矛盾。造成这些困境的原因主要是教育政策与教育实践的双向对象过程中影响变量组内部和外部之间的矛盾，即教育政策内部各要素及相关配套政策的设计不能互相支持、自上而下的政策实施忽略了实践者的适应性逻辑、政策安排与既有制度和环境不协调；同时政策创新与路径依赖的对立、政策文化与实践文化的冲突也是重要的原因。教育政策与教育实践的双向对象化受教育决策质量、教育政策实践者以及既有教育制度与环境的影响。其中，教育决策质量高低取决于政策价值取向、政策目标、政策标准与政策工具等要素，教育政策实践者的适应性逻辑是由利益、能力、习性与时间等因素共同塑造出来的，教育制度与环境主要表现为教育行政结构、教育资源配置方式、教育行政文化特征及教育自然环境。突破教育政策与教育实践双向对象化困境的策略主要有以下三个方面：第一，要提高教育政策质量，为实践者制定政策。要发挥教育研究者的决策智囊作用，提升教育决策的科学化水平；加强教育决策的公民参与，提升教育决策的民主化水平；重视教育决策的系统性、整体性、协调性与历时性，提升教育决策的系统化水平。第二，就制度与环境而言，要优化教育政策的制度环境，如下放教育决策权力、调整教育资源配置方式、重塑我国教育行政文化。第三，要重视实践者在政策过程中的适应性逻辑，政策资源的供给要针对实践者的利益诉求；提升政策实践者的政策能力，特别是决策知识；注重实践者习性的力量，采取渐进式政策变迁的路径选择；把握政策反馈的时效性。

At present, a dilemma always exists in the relationship between educational policy and educational practice. In the meantime, educational policy research still lacks a theoretical tool to analyze the relationship between educational policy and practice. In the transformation period of Chinese educational reform and development, it is of great importance to explore the relationship between educational policy and practice. Its significance is twofold: on one hand, it helps to extend the horizon of educational policy research; on the other hand, it helps to improve the quality of Chinese educational policy. Educational policy is the summation of policy texts which consists of principals of behavior and political measures in the education field; it is also a tool to adjust and allocate educational interests and to improve the development of the society through improving individual freely development; Besides, it is a dynamic, consecutive and constructing process containing expression and integration of educational interests; finally, it has some specificities compared with other public policies in terms of its policy processes and its way of interest distribution. The nature of educational practice can be understood as a process in which the subjects of educational practice reconstructing the subjectivity and objectivity through object activity. Its situationality, smart thinking and rethinking determines that the logic of educational practice is not so clear as described in theoretical discourses, rather, it is a imprecise logic. The relationship of educational policy and practice has bases from both historical facts and clear theoretical logics. In view of the facts: on one hand, the born and development of policy study as a branch of academic research is in responding to the needs of the human practice; on the other hand, the paradigm shift of Chinese educational policy practice is also in continuously responding to the needs of educational practice. In view of the theory: on one hand, educational policy has the subjective source of power of reforming educational practice; on the other hand, the educational practice also has the objective base. Based on the above facts and theoretical analyses as well as the discovery of the conscious dynamic role of educational practice, the nature of the relationship between educational policy and practice can be understood as the mutual objectification of educational policy and practice. In view of the process, the mutual objectification between educational policy and practice can be understood as a constantly circulating “chain”, which consists of a series of “educational policy-making – policy evaluation and feedback – policy adjustment” cycles. Within those cycles, the policy-making and feedback is the core section in educational policy process. At the same time, the educational policy process comprises the vertical and lateral hierarchies, and this hierarchy of policy-making and feedback is strongly correlated with the openness of educational policy activities. Based on the analysis of real cases, this research has found that the relationship of educational policy and educational practice are facing many dilemma, including: the deviation of policy criteria from policy value orientations, the unbalance of policy tools and demands from practice, the mismatching of policy aims and the distribution of decision making power, the mismatching of distribution of policy interests and what practitioners can get, the mismatching of policy aims and policy practitioners’ abilities. These dilemmas are originated from the contradictions affecting the internal and external factors of the variable group in the process of mutual objectification between educational policy and practice. These contradictions include: the internal elements of educational policy and the affiliated policy design are not well inter-supported; the “top-down” policy implementation mode neglects the adaptive logic of the practitioners; the institutional arrangements are mismatched with the existing institutional environment; at the same time, another important contradiction is the conflicts between the policy innovation and the path dependence as well as between the culture of policy and practice. The mutual objectification between educational policy and practice is influenced by the quality of educational policy-making, by educational policy practitioner and by the existing educational institution and environment. Among them, the quality of educational policy-making is depending on the factors such as policy value orientations, policy aims, policy criteria and policy tools; the adaptive logic of the educational policy practitioners are mutually shaped by interest, ability, habitus and time; And the educational institution and environment comprises educational administration structure, educational resources allocation mode, cultural aspects of educational administration, and natural environment of education. The followings are the implications of resolving the dilemma of the mutual objectification between educational policy and educational practice. First, the educational policy makers should improve the quality of policy, and make policies for practitioners: improving the scientific level of policy-making through inviting researchers to give consultation; improving the democratic level of policy-making through encouraging citizen participation in policy-making; improving the systematicness level through putting importance to systematicness, integration, coordination and historic in educational policy-making. Second, as for the institution and environment, the government should improve the institutional environment through localizing the educational decision-making power, adjusting the educational resources allocation mode, refiguring the Chinese educational administrative culture. Third, the government should concern about the adaptive logic of the practitioners in policy process: The providing of policy resources should be based on the practitioners’ demands of interest; the government should improve the policy practitioners’ policy ability, especially their knowledge of policy-making; the government should concern more about the power of practitioners’ habitus and take an incremental mode of policy changing; the government should put importance to timeliness of the policy feedback.