Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Chapter 3 Theoretical framework
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the theoretical framework underpinning this study. FPE is driven by theoretical frameworks such as human rights, human capital, systems and modernisation, based on the notion that education is a human right as declared in the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Furthermore education is considered to be one of the most fundamental engines that enhance economic growth and development. Education is also viewed as a tool for modernisation, and because by its very nature it operates within certain systems at macro, micro and meso levels, those systems play a pivotal role in ensuring that educational aims and objectives are achieved. Their achievement is further determined by their effective implementation and sustainability.
The systems theory
As we have seen above, one theory is unlikely to be adequate in providing a true understanding of FPE – especially in the context of a developing country like Swaziland. The reseacher therefore considers the use of more than one theory or rather different theories « packaged » as one – systems theory – as the appropriate theoretical framework.
Moving beyond understanding « system » as a term, Walonick (1993) asserts that systems theory is characterised by the interaction of its components and the non-linearity of those interactions. As Walonick (1993:1) explains, systems theory provides an internally consistent framework for classifying and evaluating the world. With this in mind, the researcher believes that the world can also be viewed as a system made up of different continents and countries managed by various governments that function through various departments or ministries. Pondering this, it seems logical to state that a school and a unit or subsection of a department of education of any country is directly or indirectly part of a country’s system. It is on this premise therefore that I uphold the view of Cheruto and Benjamin (2010), who explain that the systems theory deals with relationships and interactions in a system, and suggest that schools, like other organisations, are social systems. This applies not only to schools but also to the external environment that influences the way in which schools function. This is well articulated by Bastedo (2004), who points out that organisations are influenced by their environment.
An organisation’s environment consists of other organisations which are of an economic, political or social nature. Bastedo (2004) indicates that all modern organisation theories use the open systems theory, which means the systems theory is made up of multiple organisation theories. Bastedo gives examples of theories such as contingency theories, institutional theories, and resource dependency theories, which all state that an organisation’s survival depends on its relationship with its environment. Bastedo further posits that the open systems theory has changed the way in which schools are perceived because of its organisation and its demands on educational leaders. Bastedo (2004) goes on to say: Treating schools as if they are independent of their environment would lead to wide misperceptions of the driving factors behind organizational change. Contemporary studies of accountability movements, teacher professionalization, and instructional leadership all benefit from a strongly open systems approach to understanding environmental demands and the resulting adaptation in school policy and its implementation, or lack thereof.
The school is a subsystem of the education system, which is complex and composed of many subsystems. These systems are the macro system, which is the state; the school, which is the mesosystem; and the class or microsystem. Cheruto and Benjamin (2010:73) further explain « that at each of these levels, educational decisions are influenced by different actors, for example, at the school level there is the school committee, the head teacher, teachers, and parents who make certain decisions and give opinions on the management of the school ». Similarly, as Adepoju, Adunola and Fabiyi (2007) note in their research, in this study « input » refers, indirectly, to educational resources. « Process » involves management strategy employed to transform the input into output – skills and knowledge acquired.
The above explanation links up with implementation and sustainability of schools in particular and education in general. Implementation and sustainability of FPE in Swaziland reasonably depends on the interaction of educational stakeholders such as government, teachers, parents and learners, some as educational resources and others, for example students, as educational outputs. Between these two we find the process of implementation and sustainability. This is the process that illuminates the roles of other players, such as policy-makers, government officials, politicians and civil society, because their interrelationship and interdependence is vital to the success of the system.
The systems theory is applied in this study, because in doing so, these subsystems can be meaningfully interpreted using the constructivist paradigm that informs the researcher’s research beliefs and world view. It was indicated at the beginning of this section that the systems theory that underpins this study comprises modernisation theory (input), implementation and sustainability theory (process), and education and human rights theory (output). I thus dug into each individually in an attempt not to only understand the research phenomena under investigation, but also to explain and perhaps analyse the data drawn from participants or respondents.
Implementation theory
It has already been mentioned that the implementation and sustainability theories, which refer to « processes » within the system as expounded by Hill and Hupe (2002), form part of the systems theory. Elaborating on this and drawing on Easton (1953) in Hill and Hupe (2002), it is worth noting that in a political system, implementation is a throughput because it occurs within a system consisting of inputs, outputs and outcomes. Paudel (2009) conceptualises implementation as a process, output and outcome, the outcome in this case being the actual practice on the ground. It is for this reason that the implementation theory is embedded in the systems theory.
The question at hand when considering issues pertaining to implementation; is what is to be implemented (Hill & Hupe 2002).The response to this question is clearly policy. It is on this premise that the interplay between policy and practice is based in this study. It is worth noting, however, that implementation theory has not reached consensus with regard to theory itself. There are numerous schools of thought in the field, which can be attributed to the complex nature of implementation. DeLeon and DeLeon [sa], cited in an Oxford Journal downloaded in April, 2013, posits that implementation theory has reached a dead end.
The focus of this study is not on implementation theory but on the implementation of FPE in Swaziland. However, the content of the various implementation schools of thought provide the study with a good base on which to make comparisons and formulate supporting arguments. Comparisons are used not as a design but more as a tool for presenting arguments or discussing explanations without delving into the theoretical and methodological merits and demerits of theories. This is made possible because this aspect of the study is mainly based on the systems theory. It is important to note (Paudel 2009) that some of the perspectives examined here are Western in nature, therefore the implementation contexts differ from those of developing countries such as Swaziland. However, Paudel also acknowledges that the implementation process is very similar in both contexts, making an interrogation of the different schools of thought very worthwhile. Paudel (2009) believes that it is also worth looking at some of the schools of thought found in developing countries, because policy implementation in these countries hinges on them. This should be borne in mind when considering implementation schools of thought with a Western orientation. Paudel (2009) citing Saetren (2005) posits that policy implementation in developing countries is faced with challenges and concerns that are influenced by numerous factors such as poverty, negative economic and political factors, a lack of participation by stakeholders, and the uniqueness of each country. Additional factors are limited policy-making capacity and ineffective programme implementation.
Cerna (2013) elucidates how the development of implementation theories emanated from the work of Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), who are considered to have been the originators of implementation theory. Hill and Hupe (2002) believe, however, that implementation theories emerged from organisational theory, except that the term « implementation » was not used. According to these authors, the evolution of implementation theories has been the result of several historical journeys. Hill and Hupe (2002) describe how implementation studies emerged around the 1970s. As the field evolved, it merged with several schools of thought at different stages, and the resultant theories are divided into the first, second and third generation. The approaches used were classified into three categories: the top-down approach, the bottom-up approach, and the hybrid approach, which other scholars such as Matland (1995) refer to it as the synthesis approach. An understanding of these theories is crucial to this study, because it is through them that conclusions on the implementation of FPE can be drawn.
Importantly, Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) popularised the idea of policy implementation failing to meet its desired goals. Their work was therefore dubbed « first generation ». Pressman and Wildavsky also brought to the attention of policy-makers, researchers and so forth the possibility of policy implementation failure and its consequences. Pressman and Wildavsky suggested that governments should allocate resources effectively and efficiently to promote the welfare of civil society. Reviewing the work of Pressman and Wildavsky, Fischer et al (2007) support the rational model approach to implementation advocated by Pressman and Wildavsky and used commonly by governments today. This approach entails a linear relationship between policy goals and implementation, and requires proper bureaucratic procedures to be put in place. As laudable as the view of Fischer et al may seem, the researcher critiques their short-sightedness in regard to the delays often associated with bureaucracy.
In their study in Ghana, Sarfo and Baah-Mintah (2013) focus mainly on procurement and public financial management, and argue that government institutions undergo many lengthy bureaucratic processes which often result in low productivity, inefficiency and loss of money and have a detrimental effect on budget. Attempts to address these bureaucratic problems and ensure effective implementation must involve the provision of adequate resources and a clearly spelt out system of responsibility as well as a hierarchical method of supervisory control.
After the first-generation implementation theories, the second generation theories arose. These consist of the top-down theory and the bottom-up theory. Among the prominent protagonists of the top-down theory were Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), Nakamura and Smallman (1980), and Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) (Fischer et al 2007). This theory hinges on implementation being hierarchical and based on centrally developed policies (Fischer et al 2007). The theory supposes that central authority is in a better position to ensure that policy is implemented and the desired goals met. Matland (1995), summarising the works of Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989), emphasises three sets of factors that aid successful policy implementation: the ability to trace the problem, statutes’ ability to structure implementation, and variables that are not statutory but affect implementation (Matland 1995:146). This necessitated the development or formulation of 16 independent variables classified under the three sets of factors, which influence goal compliance in the implementing process. These are tabulated below.
On the other hand Barrett and Fudge (1981) are of the opinion that the top-down approach depoliticises the implementation process, despite political processes taking place throughout. They state further that policy implementation is difficult to separate from policy formulation. Fischer et al (2007) believe that policy-making is on-going, but Hill and Hupe (2002) disagree, as this would make analysis impossible. Fischer et al (2007: 53) mentions that the bottom-up theory is associated with “Lipsky (1971; 1980), Ingram (1977), Elmore (1980), or Hjern and Hull (1982). Tumadottir (2009), points out that Lipsky (1980), is considered to be the father of the bottom-up approach. Lipsy describes implementation as the everyday problem-solving strategies of « street-level bureaucrats » (in Fischer et al 2007). He describes the challenges and pressures that policy implementers are faced with. Lipsky (1969) concluded that this is why many of them eventually tend to develop their own culture of doing things and coping. Lipsky (1969) therefore describes these « street level bureaucrats » as people employed by government who interact with citizens, make independent decisions and have a strong impact on their clients. Police, teachers and low-level judges are good examples of street level bureaucrats, as well as public professionals (Tummers & Bekkers 2012).
According to Hill and Hupe (2002), these public professionals or bureaucrats implement policies based on the context that they work in and the prevailing culture that exists in their environment. They often find themselves working under difficult conditions, such as a lack of human and organisational resources, and threats that are both physical and psychological. Furthermore, their role expectations are ambiguous, contradictory and sometimes unattainable (Lipsky 1980) in Tumadottir (2009). These professionals are therefore considered to have high service ideals under intolerable conditions that require them to use their own discretion (Hill & Hupe 2002). Therefore « attempts to control them hierarchically simply increases their tendency to stereotype and disregard the needs of their clients » (Hill & Hupe 2002:66).
Cerna (2013) expounds on how Hjern and Hull (1982) and Barrett and Fudge 1981 challenge hierarchical structures in organisations and are of the view that a great deal of action depends on compromise by people in organisations or between various organisations.
The ambiguity and conflict model developed by Matland (1995), which combines the top-down and bottom-up approaches, forms part of the second-generation implementation theories. It can be used both in theory and in practice. Cerna (2013) supports Matland’s notion of combining the top- down and bottom–up approaches of policy implementation. Cerna argues that “combining the two approaches might thus draw on their main strengths while minimising their weaknesses. Policy implementation often takes place because a wide range of stakeholders interact between different levels – thus both central policy-makers and local actors on the ground are important for successful implementation” (Cerna 2013: 19) According to Matland, the approaches that exist, have a myriad of variables that affect implementation – more so because, important as the variables may be, they have been disregarded. He believes that synthesising the variables by simply combining them without theoretically considering their interrelationships worsens the problem of implementation. Matland believes that policy implementation is determined by the extent of ambiguity and conflict in policy goals. His conflict and ambiguity model has four implementation paradigms, which are: high conflict with low ambiguity (political implementation), high conflict with high ambiguity (symbolic implementation), low conflict with high ambiguity (experimental implementation), and low conflict with low ambiguity (administrative implementation) (Matland 1995).
Matland (1995) further describes the conflict and ambiguity model as entailing two approaches – the rational and the bureaucratic approach. The rational approach assumes that all policy goals are agreed upon by all actors, therefore there is a low level of conflict in the implementation process. The bureaucratic approach, on the other hand, is followed when the set goals have not been agreed upon, leading to a high level of conflict. This then necessitates bargaining in order to reach consensus, and coalitions being formed among the actors. The agreement that is reached is not necessarily on the set goals, but on what action should be taken. In most cases an agreement is not arrived at by actors. The bureaucratic approach could lead to coerciveness to ensure compliance. According to this approach, conflict will exist if the actors are interdependent but have incompatible objectives and do not interact. The level of conflict could increase if the level of incompatibility between concerns increases. The importance of any given decision will determine the level of aggressiveness.
The ambiguity model is also characterised by two categories – ambiguity of goal and ambiguity of means. Matland (1995) explains that there is a negative correlation between conflict and ambiguity. The clearer the goals the most unlikely that there will be conflict, while if there is ambiguity of goals, different actors could interpret them differently. Matland further states that ambiguity also includes ambiguity of policy means, in terms of availability of resources and its practical applicability. The top-down approach discourages ambiguity, however in most cases policy implementation is experiential and occurs by trial and error. However, Paudel (2009) is of the view that Matland overlooks the issue of policy discretion, which is a common feature used by policy-makers.
Implementation is viewed as the carrying out of the policy decision; it is usually based on a legal framework, on executive orders or on court decisions (see Blount 2013; Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989; Mazmanian & Sabatier 1983). In this study, Swaziland with regard to FPE assumes two positions – that of a legal framework and of a court decision (Paudel 2009), the legal position being informed by the FPE Act of 2010 and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland (2005), and the court decision being the High Court judgment against the GoS (Swaziland 2009a). In summary, policy cannot be regarded as a constant. It is mediated by actors who may be basing their actions on different assumptions from those formulating the policy, and inevitably it undergoes interpretation and modification and in some cases subversions. Generally speaking, policy is a problematic concept. Thus, various actors make different claims as to its true features (Hill & Hupe 2002).
The third-generation theories combine the top-down and the bottom-up approaches. They include many perspectives, but the work Elmore (1995), Sabatier (1986a), and Goggin, Bowman (1990) (in Paudel 2009) are cited most often. Elmore came up with the backward mapping approach, which blends the top-down and bottom-up approaches. For him, the policy instrument and availability of resources should be considered first and foremost; thus he refers to this as forward mapping. In addition it entails the identification of implementers’ incentives and the target group, as Matland (1995) suggests.
Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework, which consists of a group of actors from different organisations who share the same goals in the implementation process, is essential to an understanding of third-generation theories (see also Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1991). According to Cerna (2013:5), the coalition framework « specifies that there are sets of core ideas about causation and value in public policy; these coalitions form because certain interests are linked to them ». While these networks of actors can be mapped within a policy sector (Cerna 2013), Sabatier (1986; 1988) argues that policies should be analysed in cycles and over a long period of time, because the parameters within which they operate, remain stable for some time. Socio-economic and legal factors are some of the parameters that remain stable (Matland 1995; Wanna, Butcher & Freyens 2010). This framework has been criticised, however, for not considering social and historical changes as well as political changes, which commonly occur on the continent of Africa due to leaders’ aspirations and agendas differing from the broad goals and philosophies of states or countries (Fischer et al 2007).
Sustainability theory
Peter and Swilling (2014) explain that sustainabity as a theoretical foundation, field of research and discipline, is still being developed. Jalkeanen and Nygren (2005) support this assertion and state that sustainability is a new ideology. Peter & Swilling further note that there are different convergent theories on sustainability that have emerged. Contrary to this view Jalkanen and Nygren (2005) argue that sustainability is not a unified, nor coherent whole, instead it has numerous distinct and conflicting facets, which become philosophies of sustainability. It is in light of this that Jalkenen and Nygren conceive sustainability as being philosophical, rather than being a theoretical framework or model. Nevertheless, what is of interest to this study is that despite the different views, there is one common thing that advocates of sustainability agree with, and that is, sustainability is about the human environment. An environment which consists of “social, economic, environmental, physical and political systems” (Peter & Swilling 2014: 1594) The Berkshire encyclopedia concurs with Peter and Swilling when it mentions that theories of sustainability seek to respond to social and cultural problems. The Berkshire encyclopedia refers to the different dimensons highlighted by Peter and Swilling as models. The models are classified as the; economic model, ecological model and political model, which influence the social sytem.
The researcher is of the view that all the debates and attempts that have been highlighted with regards to the areas that sustainability focuses on are in line with this study. The debate on the economic benefits that can be derived from education as highlighted in the literature matches the economic sphere of sustainability. The same holds with regards to the financial cost of FPE and the envisaged economic gains in the long run. Jalkanen and Nygren (2005) attest to this economic claim. These authors acknowledge that political and social decisions are now based on economic cost-benefit analysis. However, Jalkanen and Nygren critise the solemn focus on economics and note that there are also other pertinent issues that need to be considered. These issues consist of values in relation to diversity, the natural environment, treatment of animals, cultures and traditions, and technological innovation cautiousness. The researcher is of the view that these issues are addressed in the other dimensions of sustainability, such as, the ecological and social dimensions. On the same note, issues related to access and equity in education which this study is about, belong to the social and political dimensions. The school infrastructure, surroundings and upkeep align with the ecological sphere.
In the Berkshire encyclopaedia of sustainability: The spirit of sustainability (p 380) sustainability is defined as « the capacity to maintain an entity, outcome or process over time ». According to Lynam and Herdt (1989) in Widok (2009:43), sustainability is « the capacity of a system to maintain output at a level approximately equal to or greater than its historic average with the approximation determined by the historical level of variability ».
Widok (2009) further discusses social sustainability, which FPE falls under, as it is classified under social welfare in government budgets including that of Swaziland. Social sustainability has several facets that include social values, which are sometimes referred to as social capital. The education system is a component of the social system, and its operations are influenced by the social values of society. Widok (2009:43) defines social values as consisting of « transparency, fairness, balance, equality, wellbeing, health and safety ». Most of these values fit the purpose of the introduction of FPE very well. Social sustainability concerns itself with protecting, promoting and preserving these values, such as « human rights, preservation of diversity, protection and promotion of health and safety, intra- and intergenerational equity among many others » (Craig & Benson 2013; Widok 2009; Du Plessis 2011).
