Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
(A)
W.K. Tsang 1
Policy Studies in Education
ii. Ability of status to structure implementation
- Clear and consistent objectives
- Incorporation of adequate causal theory
- Financial resources
- Hierarchical integration with and among implementing agency
- Recruitment of implementing official
- Formal access by outsiders
iii. Non-statutory variables affecting implementation
- Socioeconomic conditions and technology
- Media attention to the problem
- Public support
- Attitudes and resource of constituency groups
- Support from sovereign
- Commitment and leadership skill of implementing officials
c. Six sufficient and generally necessary conditions for effective
implementation
i. Clear and consistent objectives
ii. Adequate causal theory
W.K. Tsang 2
Policy Studies in Education
iii. Implementation process legally structured to enhance
compliance by implementing officials and target groups
iv. Committed and skillful implementing officials
v. Support of interest groups and sovereigns
vi. Changes in socioeconomic conditions which do not substantially
undermine political support or causal theory.
2. Hierarchy and market: the mechanism of policy implementation
Weimer & Vining (2005) underline that there are two basic mechanisms
in coordinating collective action into attaining societal objectives. One
is through market mechanism and the other is state intervention
through the bureaucratic hierarchy.
a. Market mechanism: “Collective action enables society to produce,
distribute, and consume a great variety and abundance of goods
(and services). Most collective action arises from voluntary
agreements among people - within families, private organizations
and exchange relations.” (Weimer & Vining, 2005, p.30)
i. Individual rational choice: According to the above-cited premise
of liberal economic perspective, the basic decision units in
collective actions are individual choices. It is further assumed
that these basic units will act in accordance with the principles of
maximization of utility and profit.
ii. Prefect competitive market: At macroscopic level, these
individual rational choices will meet and exchange in a prefect
competitive market with the following operational
principles/assumptions (Stiglitz & Walsh, 2002, p. 228; and
Stiger, 1986; p. 267))
- All participants (Firms and individuals) take market price as
given; i.e. numbers of participants are sufficiently large
- Actions by individual participants do not directly affect other
participants except through price, i.e. they act independently
and freely and not collectively;
- All participants must possess tolerable or even prefect
knowledge of the market opportunities;
- Goods are things that only the buyer can enjoy, i.e. they are
private goods. They are of the nature
+ Rivalry in consumption
+ Excludability in use
b. State intervention: State’s interventions into collective actions of
production, distribution and consumption in society involve
legitimately uses of coercive power in the name of market failure
and/or compensating the losers in market. The means employed by
the state are commonly called in public policy study the policy
instrument.
i. Conception of policy instrument: “Public policy instruments are
the set of techniques by which governmental authorities wield
their power in attempting to ensure support and effect or prevent
social change.” (Veding, 1998, p.21)
ii. Typology of policy instruments
- Regulation (Sticks): they are “means undertaken by
governmental unit to influence people by means of formulated
rules and directives which mandate receivers to action in
W.K. Tsang 3
Policy Studies in Education
accordance with what is ordered in these rules and directive.”
(p. 31)
- Economic policy instruments (Carrots): They “involve either the
handing out or the taking away of material resources, be they
in cash or in kind. Economic instruments make it cheaper or
more expensive in terms of money, time, effort, and other
valuables to pursue certain actions (either compliance or
defiance to policy measures).” (p. 32)
- Information (Sermons): They refer “to as ‘moral suasion,’ or
exhortation, covers attempts at influencing people through the
transfer of knowledge, the communication of reasoned
argument, and persuasion.” (p.33)
c. Professional power as the third logic: Eliot Freidson contends that
besides market and state, there is the third logic at work in public
policy implementation process in modern society, namely
professional power.
i. The third logic in public policy:
“For decades now, the popular watchwords driving policy
formation (and implementation) have been ‘competition’ and
‘efficiency’, the first referring to competition in a free market, and
the second to the benefit of the skilled management of firms
(governmental agencies). …I will show in some detail how
properties of professionalism fit together to form a whole that
differs systematically from the free market on the one hand, and
the …bureaucracy, in the other.” (Freidson, 2001, p.2-3)
Therefore, Freidson contends that “like Max Weber’s model of
rational-legal bureaucracy which represents managerialism and
Adam Smith’s model of the free market which represents
consumerism” (p. 180), “professionalism is conceived of as one
of the three logically distinct methods of organizing and
controlling.” (p.180)
ii. Constituents of Professionalism:
“Professionalism is based on specialized bodies of knowledge
and skill that have no coercive power of their own but only what
may be delegated to them by the state or capital. They gain their
protected (and legitimate) status by project of successful
persuasion, not by buying it or capturing it at the point of a gun.
But because of the special nature of the knowledge and skill
imputed to professionals as well as the fact that their practice is
protected, friendly commentators have long invoked the need to
trust their intention.” (p.214) Accordingly the constituents of
professionalism may comprise
- Academically respectable knowledge
- Practically credible Skill
- Socially trustful codes of ethnics and practices
- Effective authority and autonomy over the above constituents
W.K. Tsang 7
Policy Studies in Education
(B)
Beyond Top and Bottom Dichotomy:
The Third Generation of Implementation Theory
W.K. Tsang 10
Policy Studies in Education
RELATIVELY STABLE
PERAMETERS Degree of
1. Basic attributes of the POLICY SUBSYSTEM
consensus needed Coalition A Policy Coalition B
problem area (good) for major policy
2. Basic distribution of natural Brokers
change
resources
3. Fundamental socio-cultural
a. Policy beliefs a. Policy beliefs
values and social structure
b. Resources b. Resources
4. Basic Constitutional
structure (rules)
Strategy A1 Strategy B1
re guidance re guidance
instruments instruments
Constraints
and
Resources Decisions by Governmental
of Authorities
EXTERNAL (SYSTEM) EVENTS
1. Changes in socio-economic Subsystem
conditions Actors
2. Changes in public opinion Institutional Rules, Resource
3. Changes in systemic Allocations, and Appointments
governing coalition
4. Policy decisions and
impacts from other
subsystems Policy Outputs
Policy Impacts
W.K. Tsang 16
Policy Studies in Education
4. At school-organization level, policy implementation represents a
process of dissemination of policy imperatives, task specifications and
working routines within the ranks and files of the implementing
organization. As a result, organizations, school-organizations in
particular have be studied as the learning organization. Among the
proliferating approaches to learning organization, three of the more
representative are outline as follows
a. Ikujiro Nonaka’s Knowledge-Creation Organization
i. Two dimensions of knowledge creation
- Epistemological
- Ontological
ii. Two types of knowledge
- Tacit knowledge
- Explicit knowledge
iii.Four models of knowledge conversion
- Socialization: Sharing and creating tacit knowledge through
direct experience; individual to individual
- Externalization: Articulating tacit knowledge through dialogue
and reflection; individual to group
- Combination: Systemizing and applying explicit knowledge and
information: group to organization
- Internalization: Learning and acquiring new tacit knowledge in
practice; organization to individual
iv.Knowledge spiral
- Field building
- Dialogue
- Linking explicit knowledge/networking
- Learning by doing
v. Spiral of organizational knowledge creation
W.K. Tsang 17
Policy Studies in Education
b. Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline of the learning organization
i. The five learning disciplines
- Personal mastery
- Mental models
- Shared vision
- Team learning
- System thinking
ii. System thinking - The fifth discipline
iii.The Framework of learning organization
- Implicate (generative order)
- The Essence of the LO
- The architecture of LO
- The wheel of learning
- Results
c. Kenneth Leithwood’s theory of learning school
i. Learning organization is defined as “a group of people pursuing
common purpose (individual purposes as well) with a collective
commitment to regularly weighing the value of those purpose,
modifying them when makes sense, and continuously
developing more effective and efficient ways of accomplishing
those purpose.” (Leitrhwood & Aitken, 1995, p.63)
ii. Five constituents of the framework of the learning organization
- Stimulus for learning
- Organizational-learning process
- Out-of-conditions
- School conditions
- School leadership
- Outcome
W.K. Tsang 19
Policy Studies in Education
E. From Policy Implementation to Policy Enactment: How Schools Do
Policy
Stephen J. Ball and his colleagues published their most recent
research on education policy implementation in 2011 in a book
entitled How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary
Schools. The work attempt to go beyond the traditional research
orientation of policy implementation, instead they call the process
“policy enactment”. More importantly, Ball and his colleagues
attempt to substantiate Foucalt’s of discourse, power, and subject
within the policy process of enactment (and implementation) in the
school contexts of UK.
1. Concept of policy enactment: Ball et al. begin their book with a
distinction between policy implementation studies and their policy
enactment studies.
a. Policy implementation: Ball et al. indicate traditional policy
implementation studies that “explore how policies are put into
practice talk of ‘implementation’ which is generally seen either as
‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ process of making policy work, and these
studies ‘stress the demarcation between policy and
implementation.’ (Grantham, 2001: 854)” (Ball, 2012, P. 6)
Furthermore, they underline that these “policy implementation
studies conceive of the school itself as a somewhat homogenous
and de-contextualised organization that is an undifferentiated
‘whole’ into which various policies are slipped or filtered into
place.” (Ball et al. 2012, P. 5)
b. Policy enactment: Ball et al. assert, “In contrast, we see policy
enactment as a dynamic and non-linear aspect of the whole
complex that make up the policy process, of which policy in school
is just one part.” (Ball et al., 2012, P. 6) Ball et al. has highlighted
that this complex, dynamic and non-linear process is made up of
i. re-contextualization process,
ii. interpretation process,
iii. translation process, and
iv. transforming policy into policy work in policy actors
2. Policy re-contextualization:
a. The first conceptual unit in Ball et al.’s theory of policy enactment
is the policy context. Ball et al. underline that the major of
education policy studies have been conducted in “de-
contextualized” orientation. These studies more or least aim at
constituting universal and generic policy measures, which can be
implemented to most if not all schools. Ball et al. indicate that
“research texts in education policy rarely convey any sense of the
built environment from which the ‘data’ are elicited or the financial
or human resources available―policy is dematerialized (Ball et al.,
2012, P. 20) as well as de-contextualized.
b. In contrast to this research orientation, Ball et al. emphasize that
“context is mediating factor in the enactment work done in schools
―and it is unique to each school, however similar they may
initially seem to be. In the course of the fieldwork, we have
become alerted to the prominence of context in many case study
schools’ policy decision and activities.” (Ball et al. 2012, P. 40)
W.K. Tsang 20
Policy Studies in Education
c. More specifically, Ball et al. assert that “Policy creates context, but
context also precedes policy.” (Ball, 2012, P. 19) Ball et al. further
specify the contextual differences found in their case study
schools as follows.
“Policies enter different resource environments; schools have
particular histories, buildings and infrastructures, staff profiles,
leadership experiences, budgetary situations and teaching and
learning challenges (e.g. proportions of children with special
educational need (SEN), English as an additional language (EAL),
behavioural difficulties, ‘disabilities’ and social and economic
‘deprivations’) and the demands of context interaction. School
differ in their student intake, school ethos and culture, they engage
with local authorities and experience pressures from league tables
and judgements made by national bodies such as Ofsted.” (Ball et
al. 2012, P. 19)
d. Accordingly, Ball et al. have synthesized the “contextual dimension
of policy enactment as follows
W.K. Tsang 21
Policy Studies in Education
text have to be formally articulated in staff meetings, briefing
sessions, work group discussions, written guidelines and task
specifications. As a result, these “articulation and authorization” will
“make something into a priority, assign it a value, high or low.” (p.
44-45) Hence, interpretation is an institutional political process.” (P.
45)
d. Formation of Interpretive communities: These situated and
institutionalized interpretations of policy texts in schools are not
consensually and equally shared among teachers and other staffs
within a school. It is because these policy interpreters are
hierarchically positioned within the power context of a school. They
will decode and interpret policy text with their primary concerns,
vested interests, in short within their own “meaning contexts”. As a
result, interpreters sharing similar positions or situations may and
will share similar interpretations and form specific interpretive
communities.
4. Policy translation: The third conceptual unit of the policy enactment
theory is translation. As Ball et al. suggest “policy texts “cannot simply
be implemented! They have to be translated from text to action―put
into ‘practice―in relation to history and to contexts, with the resources
available. (Ball et al., 2012, P. 3)
a. Tactics of translation: Ball et al. reveal in their findings that
translation of policy text and its interpreted meanings into school
and classroom practice is “an iterative process” makes up of
sequence of complex “tactics.” They “include talk, meetings, plans,
events, learning walks, as well as producing artefacts and
borrowing ideas and practices from other schools, purchasing and
drawing on commercial materials and official websites, and being
supported by LA advisors.” (Ball et al., 2012, P. 45)
b. Translation in mandated routines: Policy translation can also take
the form of imperatives. In Ball et al.’s case study schools in UK, it
takes the forms of “open class observation”, “peer observation” or
“observation week”. Ball et al. underlines that “observation is a
tactic of policy translation, an opening up of practice to change, a
technique of power enacted by teachers one upon the other―’a
marvelous machine’ (Foucault, 1979,:202) ―and a source of
evidence of policy activity.” (Ball et al. 2012, P. 46)
c. The outcome of translation: From these tactics and imperatives of
policy translation, “the language of policy is translated into language
of practice, words into action, abstraction into inactive processes.
Moreover, “translation is simultaneously a process of invention and
compliance. As teachers engage with policy and bring their
creativity to bear on its enactment, they are also captured by it.
They change it, in some ways, and it changes tem.” (Ball et al.,
2012, P. 48)
5. Policy actors: Ball et al. point out that “our data indicates very clearly
that actors in schools are positioned differently and take up different
positions in relation to policy.” (Ball et al., 2012, P. 49) These
positioned policy actors have rendered different interpretation and
translation to a particular policy and as a result have brought about
different “policy work”. Ball et al. have categorized eight types of policy
W.K. Tsang 22
Policy Studies in Education
actors and policy work from their data. They are as follows. (Ball et al.,
2012, Table 3.1, P. 49)
Additional Reference
Castells, Maneul (1996) The Rise of Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, Michel (1982) “The Subject and Power” Pp. 208-226. In H.L. Dreyfus
and P. Rabinow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics, 2nd Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
W.K. Tsang 26
Policy Studies in Education