The development of the Policy Process

According to Christie (2008: 115), there are many debates about the development of the policy process and how it works. This section looks at some of the debates because it helps us to understand what can be expected of policy, and where the policy processes “go wrong.” Using Bowe et al. (1992) for this discussion, a distinction will now be drawn between two common conceptual models of the education policy process in helping us understand the policy making process.

The first is known as a “rationalist” model of policy making. It assumes that policy making is essentially a rational process, which operates through classic steps, from formulation through to implementation. The educational problem is seen as one that requires technical solutions. Policies are seen as blueprints which exist prior to action, and which are imposed on the external world in a controlled way, which is assumed to be consensual.

The second is seen as a “political” model of policy making which typically begins with the assumption that policy is “the authoritative allocation of values” and hence, that policy making is essentially a political activity. In terms of this model, understanding power relations, conflict and contestation is crucial to understanding the nature of policy. Policy analysts who adopt a “political” model are critical of the notion that implementation is a matter of automatically following a fixed policy text and putting legislation “into practice” (Bowe & Ball, 1992). These two models will now be discussed in further detail.

2.3.1.1 Rational Approaches

Rational theories of policy often see policy formulation and policy implementation as two separate steps in the same process. The challenge, in terms of such theories, is to move smoothly from one step to the next recognising that the process may get stuck along the way. The rational approaches assume

that the policy process is best understood as taking place in a sequence of steps, forming a linear or cyclical progression. The starting point of a policy is an issue that requires attention, or a problem that needs to be addressed. Policy makers, those in bureaucracies, decide how to deal with the issue. They “decide how to decide” (for example; through an act of Parliament, a set of new procedures under an existing act, a commission of inquiry or public consultation, and so on). They investigate different options, drawing on expert knowledge and taking into account the views of different interest groups. They then decide what option to take, and formulate policies accordingly. Often (but not always) such policies are written. They allocate resources and draw up regulations and procedures. They then implement the policies, monitor the results and adjust the policies to ensure that they meet their goals. Then the cycle begins again.

However, some researchers and policy makers have questioned the assumptions and analytical validity of the “rationalist” model. Gordon (2004) cited in Hill (2001: 8) notes that “the power and survival ability of the ‘rational system’ model is surprising, given that its assumptions have been undermined by empirical studies of the policy process, and that its predictive record is uneven.” They explain this durability with reference to its status as a normative model and to the fact that the policy makers themselves often support it.

Nonetheless Carley (1980) cited in Christie (2008: 120), argues that even if the policy process as seen from a rationalist viewpoint, is not as neat as this description suggests, there is still value in defining its different stages and activities in a rational way.) The rational approach is particularly useful in analysing how to intervene in the policy process, or improve it.

2.3.1.2 Critical Approaches

Critical approaches to policy, in contrast, assume that the policy process cannot be neatly sequenced. In fact, according to this viewpoint, trying to impose a rational approach is likely to distort our understanding of what actually happens in the policy process. Ranson’s (1995) work illustrates this “political” or “values” approach. Ransom (1995: 44) proposes that policies “have a distinctive and formal purpose for organisations and governments to codify and publicise the values which are to inform future practice and thus encapsulate prescriptions for reform.” He further argues that policy is essentially contested, intrinsically political and necessarily a temporal process, involving issues relating to tasks and people.

Also, according to other critical analysts such as Bowe & Ball (1992), policy making is not necessarily a step-by-step linear or cyclical process. It consists of a mix of simultaneous activities, often at cross-purposes. The complexity of policy processes, they argue, can neither be understood in terms of sequential steps nor without taking into account the competing interests and power of the social actors concerned. Thus, critical policy sociologists favour a conception of the policy making process as one that is an interactive, dynamic and contradictory political process. They oppose the linear view that emphasises a separation between formulation and implementation. Rather, they view policy as constantly formulated and re-formulated, being subject to interaction at various stages by key policy respondents and stakeholders. Policy is thus, fundamentally a socio- political practice in connection with which groups with different interests struggle and attempt to assign meaning.

This distinction between a “rationalist” and a “critical” model of the policy making process is clearly a very broad one, which masks debate within each model among those who claim to offer superior explanatory frameworks. Drawing on the critical policy sociology tradition, I support the view that the

policy making process is complex and interactive. Policy is contested vigorously by groups in civil society with a view to securing specific interests and commitments, and is thus always subject to negotiation and compromise. Understanding the various contexts in which policy is made is thus crucial. Bearing in mind that the distinction provides a very broad tool of analysis, it is useful for the purpose of this chapter that the distinction between these two conceptual models be used to interrogate(or challenge?) the policy making process concerning outcomes-based education (OBE) for Arts and Culture teachers in South Africa.

2.4 CONVENTIONAL ACCOUNTS OF CURRICULUM POLICY