THE INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM (1990-1994)

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER  TWO CLARIFICATION  OF  KEY  CONCEPTS

INTRODUCTION

The terms ‘policy,’ ‘policy implementation,’ ‘system,’ ‘education system, ‘ ‘transition’ and ‘change’ have surfaced regularly in the discussion of the problem, the background to the problem, and the research purposes of the study. Definition of these terms was deferred to this chapter to enable an extended discussion of the key concepts against a background of relevant literature. In the course of this discussion the concepts shall also be grounded in operational definitions.

KEY CONCEPTS

Policy

General definitions

There are  many definitions of policy. As Cunningham ( 1963:229) observed: ‘Policy is rather like an elephant – you recognise it when you see it but cannot define it easily.’ The term, nevertheless, has several related shades of meaning. Merritt and Coombs (1977: 259) maintain that:
… it may best be defined as an authoritative prescription for behavior or, alternatively, as a decision rule for people occupying certain positions in the system. This definition distinguishes between a policy and either a goal or behavior. It is the authoritative prescription itself, whether embodied in law, administrative directives, or informal messages circulating within the education system, that counts.
Mazzoni (1985: 67) follows a similar line of thought but differs from Merritt and Coombs (1977) in stressing the goal orientation of policies. Thus he defines a policy as ‘an authoritative decision that establishes the goals and  behaviors’ of organisation members. In other words, a policy is directed towards the routinisation of specific behaviours that would facilitate the achievement of particular goals and values.
Peter W House (1982, cited by Tanner, 1991: 93) suggests that the purpose of public policy is to make ‘corrections in the ship of state’ and to change it as the ‘weather’ requires. This view of policy clearly draws attention to the fact that it has the function of ensuring orderly fu?5tioning Qf the system. Therefore when internal and external changes threaten this stability, policies have to be changed or revised. Prunty (1984: 24-25) belongs to a similar school  of thought  as he maintains Kogan (1975: 55) draws attention to another facet of policies. He maintains that policies involve ‘authoritative alJocati()n of val-µes’. Therefore they are operatiqg~l__ statements of values and ‘statements of p..J:_e~C£!ptive i_r:i_’t§l!t.’ Focussing on education, Cistone (1977: 90) also touches upon the fact that policies are prescriptions for behaviour when he writes:
Educational policy is a form of public policy that affects a substantive area in public jurisdiction. Educational policy has both an instrumental and an expressive function. It defines ~~a~tion<ll__goals, and it provides standards and prescribes criteria by which the··educational enterprise is evaluated. Concomitantly it expresses a conception of a desirable future for both individuals and society, and allocates human and material resources in pursuit of that future.
The notion of  prescription also draws  attention to  the  fact  that policies are closely linked to power and control. Prunty ( 1985: 136) draws attention to this in his examination of the concept:
The authoritative allocation of values draws our attention to the centrality of power and control in the concept of policy.
Education policies, as authoritative and prescriptive statements, are binding on all in the education system until they are challenged, resisted, or rejected – resulting, in time, in their revision or replacement. Also using this idea as his point of departure, Ball (1990: 3) maintains that education policies cannot be separated from ‘interests, from  conflict, from domination or from   justice.’ In   an article that concentrates on an examination of the term ‘policy’, Ball (1993: 13) also  comments    on  the  power  aspect  of  policies  as follows:
Policies typically posit a restructuring, redistribution and disruption of power relations, so that different people can and cannot do different things.
He also argues that the operation of this power aspect of policies reveals itself in the actual process of policy implementation. Ultimately, from this perspective, policy outcomes are the product of conflict, struggle, and  domination.

Operational definition

Despite the shades of difference in the definitions presented and differences in the particular aspects of policies highlighted, collectively they suggest that the following are the core elements of an education policy:

• It is an authoritative prescription for behaviour within the education system.
• It is a goal and value-oriented  prescription.
• It sometimes is a response to internal and external changes that threaten the stability of the system.
• It often defines the steps and standards for implementation and criteria for evaluation.
• It is closely linked to power and  control.

The relationship between policy intentions and poll<::¥ outcomes is often nonlinear and uncertain because of the multiple factors that operate during policy implementation.
Therefore in this study an education policy is defined as an a.~thorita_~~y~_?rescription that has the dual objective of controlling the behaviour of organisation members and affected groups to secure preferred goals and values, and when neC-9s-sa’ry, addressing external and internal changes _,th~ threate~ the stability of the education system. Education policies may be issued in the form of legislation, circulars, or policy documents.

Policymaking

Technicist vs  democratic  policymaking

Once i~es and progl~ms have been identified the actual task of p,aj:i~:zr formulation in education may be technicist or democratic. Badat (1991: 23-26), for example, maintains that the pre-election South African government approach to education policy was ‘marked by technicism.’ He categorises both the De Lange investigation and the Education Renewal Strategy as being technicist. ‘In both these policy-making exercises, state officials, academics and researchers became the arbiters of the needs of the mass of the people.’ The technicist approach also tends to be undemocratic and authoritarian. Badat (1991: 25) concludes that this approach to policymaking is likely to generate problems and resistance during policy implementation. A democratic approach, in contrast.

Policymaking as a political process

Marshall et al. (1986: 348) view policymaking as a political process in which various stakeholders interact to influence policy decisions that are favourable to their  interests. Figure  2.2  presents their representation of the policymaking process. Prunty ( 1984: 1 ) also asserts:
Educational policymaking is an exercise of power and control directed towards the attainment or preservation of some preferred arrangement of schools and society. Whether a particular policy has to do with the nature of school curriculum, pedagogy, the role of the community in school decision-making, disciplinary procedures, or the content and criteria of HSC examinations, some desired state of affairs is envisaged, and the requisite resources and authority are garnered in the service of this ideal.
Because of its political nature, policymaking thus always involves exercise of power and influence to secure preferred positions through the policymaking process (see sections 1.3.2.2.2, 2.2.3.2.2, 6.3.2.2, and 6.3.2.4).

Policymaking under adversity

Dror (1986: 23-35), who developed the concept of ‘policymaking under adversity,’ describes the ‘generalized features of main policy adversities’  as the   ‘rapid  shifts  and  jumps  in  policy  issues’; society in transition’ have much in common becomes   evident  in Dror’s discussion of  each of   the main ‘policy adversities.’ Of ‘shifts  and jumps  in  policy issues,’ Dror (1986: 23) says the following:
Shifts and time-compressed turns in the nature of issues make traditional policy paradigms, policy assumptions, policy habits, policy « grammars, » and grand policies increasingly doubtful. Recent, present and foreseeable shifts and jumps in policy issues include transformations in expectations, aspirations, and beliefs, inflections of the internal dynamics of policies, which make their linear continuation with only incremental changes impossible or counterproductive …

Acknowledgements 
Summary 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. 1 INTRODUCTION
1. 2 PROBLEM
1.3 RESEARCH PURPOSES AND PARAMETERS
1. 4 VALUE OF STUDY
1. 5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO: CLARIFICATION OF KEY CONCEPTS
2. 1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 KEY CONCEPTS
2.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
3. 1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 MULTIVARIATE SYSTEMS APPROACH
3.3 RESEARCH MODEL
3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.5 LIMITATION
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR: THE INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM (1990-1994)
4. 1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A SYSTEM IN TRANSITION
4.3 EDUCATION SYSTEM IMPACTS
4.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: QUESTIONNAIRE AND STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
5. 1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A SYSTEM IN TRANSITION
5.3 EDUCATION SYSTEM IMPACTS
5.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
6. 1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A TRANSITION
6.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7. 1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.3 CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A SOCIETY IN TRANSITION: A MULTIVARIATE SYSTEMS APPROACH