Given that curriculum is a political and contextualised social process, understanding the process of curriculum change requires investigation into the process of making a curriculum policy. Elmore and Sykes (1992, p.186) define curriculum policy as ―the formal body of law and regulation that pertains to what should be taught in schools‖. In the context of this study curriculum policy refers to statements about the inclusion of environmental education, as found in government official documents, LEESP guidance documents, and geography curriculum documents.
Walker (2003) discusses the functions of policy in curriculum matters, and concludes that policy serves a cultural function, giving people an opportunity to express shared values regarding what should be taught in schools and how it should be taught. Thus the central focus of curriculum policy research is to understand how official actions are determined, what these actions require of schools and teachers, and their effect on what is taught to particular learners (Elmore & Sykes, 1992). Elmore and Sykes distinguish between policy intentions and policy actions, that is, between what is
shows that there is often a gap or tension between policy intentions and actions (Prawat, 1992; Taylor et al., 2003; Cotton, 2006; Rogan, 2007; Blignaut, 2008). This is partly because policy statements often lack clarity and do not resolve conflicts among competing political interests (Elmore & Sykes, 1992). As mentioned in Section 4.3.1, this is particularly the case when a policy process follows a technical approach in which curriculum policies are initiated from the central department of education and introduced to schools through a top-down approach (Macdonald, 2003). Clearly, investigating the process of curriculum policy making and conceptualisation could enhance an understanding of the gap between policy intentions and policy actions.
4.7.1 A policy cycle model
There are a number of models in terms of which one can analyse the social process of conceptualising and implementing a curriculum policy. For example, Bernstein (1990) proposes a curriculum policy recontextualisation model which recognises that policy messages change from the field of their production through the field of recontextualisation and the field of reproduction, as curriculum agents make sense of the new policy. Bowe et al. (1992) propose a somewhat similar policy cycle model illustrating the political nature of curriculum policy development and implementation. Since my study is not investigating curriculum recontextualisation per se, like other curriculum policy researchers, for example, Rawling (2001), I chose to make use of the policy triangle model proposed by Bowe et al. (1992) for analysis of the LEESP documents and the social process of conceptualising environmental education in Lesotho (see chapters 6 and 7). This model was also intended to elicit information pertaining to the nature of the social process through which environmental education was conceptualised and implemented in Lesotho (see research question 2 in Chapter 1). Hence in this section I will elaborate on this model.
The model consists of the following three policy contexts: the context of influence, the context of policy text production and the context of practice. A diagrammatic illustration of this policy triangle model appears as Figure 4.1.
Context of influence
Context of practice Context of text production Source: Bowe, et al. (1992) Figure 4.1: Diagrammatic representation of policy triangle
4.7.1.1 The context of influence
While ―curriculum reform arises out of the requirement to engage with … contemporary cultural, economic and technological change‖ (Bernstein, 2000, p.66), according to Bowe et al. (1992), policy change is normally initiated at a national level of official policy-making. The process may be characterised by controversy as interested parties, both from government and private arenas of influence, struggle to dominate the prevailing discourses. Out of this struggle and controversy the decision to transform the curriculum is made, on the basis of national needs (as perceived in the main by elites and bureaucrats within the ministry of education). However, as will be shown later in this chapter (see Section 4.10), in the case of developing countries such as Lesotho, initiation of new curriculum policy is often influenced by global changes and external donor agencies which fund curriculum reform projects. In some other cases, for example in South Africa, curriculum policy change processes serve symbolic political interests (Jansen, 1999).
4.7.1.2 The context of policy text production
In this context various forms of policy text are articulated and produced, ideally in the interest of the general public. These texts may include official legal texts and curriculum documents (including textbooks) representing policy intentions. They may also include ―formally and informally produced commentaries which offer to make sense of the official texts... the speeches of relevant politicians and officials…‖ (Bowe et al., 1992, p. 21).
Bowe et al. (1992, p.21) note that at the legislative level, policy texts are not necessarily clear, but rather ―are generalised, written in relation to idealisation of the real world, and cannot be exhaustive… .‖ They further point out that official policy texts are often contradictory in their use of key terms, and are reactive to particular events and circumstances. This suggests that a curriculum policy text should be analysed alongside other relevant policy texts, to establish intertextual links and in the context of its history and particular site of production (ibid.).
According to Bowe et al. (1992), texts produced in this arena are the product of struggle and compromise, as groups of actors are competing for control of their meaning. As suggested by critical curriculum theory, this implies that a curriculum is never neutral, but always a political document representing the interests of dominant groups (Goodson, 1990; Jansen, 1998; Apple, 2002). Bowe et al. (1992) suggest that a study on curriculum policy should not separate curriculum policy implementation from its development. Hence, this study also investigated the social process of conceptualising environmental education at the levels of curriculum decision making and curriculum development within the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) in Lesotho, to understand contestations and tensions experienced during that process (see Chapter 7).
4.7.1.3 The context of practice
This is the third level of the policy cycle, where new curriculum policy is interpreted and implemented by practitioners. Bowe et al. (1992) observe that in the context of practice policy is not simply received and implemented, but is subjected to interpretation and creation. In describing the complex process of policy implementation they write as follows:
Practitioners do not confront policy texts as naïve readers, they come with histories, with experience, with values and purposes of their own; they have vested interests in the meaning of policy. Policy will be interpreted differently as the histories, experiences, values, purposes and interests which make up any arena differ. The simple point is that policy writers cannot control the meaning of their texts. Parts of texts will be rejected, selected out, ignored, deliberately misunderstood, responses may be frivolous etc. (Bowe et al., 1992, p. 22)
This suggests that to ensure the successful implementation of curriculum reform, the policy process needs to take full account of contextual factors – the schools and classrooms as experienced by teachers and learners.
The policy triangle outlined in this section illustrates that curriculum policy-making is a political process involving multiple stake-holders and interest groups. In this regard, as Marsh (2009) suggests, it is important to analyse and understand the contributions of the various players who make decisions about curriculum matters. Perhaps the most important questions are: Who are these decision-makers? And what is their role in curriculum policy?