| AARE Conference, Newcastle, 27 November - 1 December 1994 The role of policy implementation and its effect on policy outcomes by Ian Brown Over the past twenty years public policy analysis has identified the emergence of a new subfield: the role of policy implementation and it's effect on policy outcomes. This paper explores this important new field in relation to educational policy. In this era of obvious change and reform in education, it is important for educationalists to stimulate or modify educational policy and enter the policy arena equally with other influential bodies. It is the belief of the presenter that to be efficient and enter into influencing, then it is critical to understand the policy process: implementation, in particular. The paper will outline the progress of a higher degree study, which describes the implementation process of a commonwealth policy (Education and the Arts) as it was implemented at the state level. This paper will outline the progress of a higher degree study, which describes the implementation process of the commonwealth policy, Education and the Arts (1985), as it was implemented at the state level. It will address the emergence of what some policy theorists have claimed as a new subfield: the role of policy implementation and it's effect on policy outcomes. It will describe the application of one model, devised by Winter (1990) which demonstrates the policy process, and another by Goggin (1990) which conceptualises the implementation process at the state level. Arts education in Australia is not unlike other curriculum areas, in as much, it is being affected by the imposition of national statements, policies and profiles. Coupled with the obvious change and reform in education over the past decades, a trend that is sure to continue towards 2000, it is timely that arts educators enter the policy arena. The result being an understanding the policy process, allowing for influence and power over the policy development. The Policy Processes To enter the arena, play the game and empower the players, it is important to understand the rules and apply a game plan. An integral understanding of the policy process is required. Dye (1987) suggests a 'process model' which identifies the various processes occurring within a government system or discipline. Dye's model (1987:324) includes the identification of policy problems through public demands for government action; the formulation of policy proposals by policy planning organisations, interest groups or government bureaucracies; the legitimation of policies through political actions; the implementation of policies through organised bureaucracies and the evaluation of policies by government agencies or outside agencies. The Implementation Process This paper has chosen for it's focus one of the components from Dye's policy model: implementation. Palumbo and Calista (1990:xi) state that over the past two decades public policy analysis has witnessed the emergence of this new subfield. They contend that to gain a fuller understanding of the entire policy process there needs to be a conceptualisation or reconsideration of this particular area, in the field of public policy analysis. As a result of classic studies by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), Hargrove (1975), Bardach (1979), Mazmanian and Sabatier (1980) and Lipsky (1980) there has been an increased significance concerning implementation and its independent effect on policy outcomes. As a result of these studies it was recognised that implementation process can be conceptualised as both a dynamic and complex process within an already dynamic and complex policy process. To shed light on this process, Goggin, Bowman, Lester and O'Toole (1990) have divided existing implementation studies into two generations and as well propose a third. They identify first generation studies as being those that include detailed accounts of how single authorative decisions are carried out. An example, is the Pressman and Wildavsky study in 1968 of the Economic Development Administration's employment effort in Oakland. First generation studies have been viewed as atheoretical, case-specific, noncumulative and pessimistic. (Goggin et al 1990). Second generation studies main contribution to policy analysis, according to Goggin et al, was the development of analytical frameworks to guide research on the implementation phenomenon. Studies such as the framework development study by Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) and Ripley and Franklin (1982) can be identified as second generation. The major contributions of these studies have been that they recognise that implementation varies across time, policies and states. In contrast, Goggin et al (1990:19), propose that third generation studies will shed light on the policy process by explaining why the implementation behaviour varies across time, policies and units of government. They contend that the unique trait of third generation research is its research design. That is, it has an explicit theoretical model which operationalises definitions of concepts with an exhaustive search for reliable indicators of implementation and predictor variables. According to Goggin et al, third generation research should specify theoretically derived hypotheses and analyse data using appropriate qualitative and statistical procedures as well as providing case studies for testing them. The research study outlined in this paper is applying a third generation approach to understand the implementation process of a commonwealth arts education policy which was formulated and implemented between 1984 and 1988. The Policy In August 1983, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan, established a Task Force on Education and the Arts. The Task Force was to make recommendations on possible Commonwealth initiatives to promote education and the arts with particular emphasis on the needs of youth. The Task Force identified that arts education in 1985 had been inadequately supported in the past and that a concerted effort was needed to advance the arts in education. It recognised that very few of the recommendations made by an earlier report, also titled Education and the Arts (1977), had been implemented. The Task Force report was endorsed by the Minister and made over forty recommendations. If adopted, the recommendations would have established a dynamic program, with the Commonwealth, States and Territories entering into a productive partnership. It was the intention of this report that it would make an important contribution to the resurgence of the arts in education in Australia. The report recommended approximately eighteen million dollars be spent in three years on the arts in education. This study is using the Arts in Education (1985) policy and analysing it using the tenets proposed for a third generation implementation study. The Study The following is a brief description of the study, outlining its conceptualisation, methodology and operationalisation. The study has yet to be completed. The study is set in both a bureaucratic and intergovernmental setting. Bureaucratic, as it examines the implementation of a policy which was formulated at the Commonwealth level. Intergovernmental, as the federally developed policy was to be implemented at the state level. The study is both comparative and diachronic. Comparative, as the study will compare the implementation process between a number of states. Diachronic, as it focuses on the implementation process across time. That is, from 1984 to 1988. The theoretical base of the study relies on applying an implementation process model which was developed by Soren Winter (1990). This will enable the researcher to identify the variables which may have effected the implementation outcomes. Winter's Model identifies a number of variables that may affect the outcome and output of the implementation of the policy. He takes into account not only the implementation phase but the policy formation phase as well. Within the policy formation phase, he identifies a number of possible variables, such as conflict, causal theory, symbolic action and the level of attention afforded by the policy formulators. Within the implementation phase he has identified three variables: organisational and interorganisational implementation; street-level bureaucratic behaviour and target group behaviour. Winter's model is being applied to the formation and implementation phases of the Arts in Education (1985) policy. A dynamic model of the implementation process as developed by Goggin et al, (1990), is also being applied to the implementation process of the Arts in Education(1985) policy. The model proposed by Goggin et al, can be conceptualised as a candidate theory. That is, a tentative set of related propositions capable of predicting and explaining state-level implementation processes, outputs and outcomes. Importantly, specifying the conditions under which various state implementation behaviours are likely to occur. In the model three clusters of variables can be identified which may effect state implementation. That is, inducements and constraints from the 'top' (the federal level), inducements and constraints from the 'bottom' (the state and local levels) and finally the state decisional outcomes and capacity. Goggin et al (1990:33), contend that at any given time the interaction of the three clusters determines the course the implementation will take. The model as it is applied to this study will address the interorganisational and intergovernmental aspects of the implementation process. In conclusion It is the belief of the researcher that the data obtained in this study will provide a description of the implementation process and identification of the outputs and outcomes as a result of the implementation process. As well, a determination of possible factors which shaped its impact as a result of implementation will be known. It is imperative that in order for educationalists to stimulate or modify policy in art education they must enter the the policy arena equipped with knowledge and understandings of the policy process. By understanding of the process of implementation, through analysing the Education and the Arts policy, educators will become skilful and efficient in influencing the final outcomes. To influence outcomes, one must enter the policy arena equally with other influential groups such as government bureaucrats. It is envisaged that the results of studies such as this, concerned with deconstructing the implementation process and analysing the policy outcomes, will empower educators to influence the policy development. References Bardach, Eugene. (1977). The Implementation Game. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Commonwealth Department of Education. (1985). Action: Education and the Arts. An illustrated edition of the Report of the Task Force on Education and the Arts to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Dye, Thomas. (1987). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc. Goggin, Malcolm and Bowman, Ann and Lester, James and O'Toole, Laurence. (1990). Implementation Theory and Practice, Toward a Third Generation. Illinois: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education. Lipsky, Michael. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul. (1983). Implementation and Public Policy. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co. Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul. (Eds). (1981). Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington: Lexington Books. Palumbo, Dennis and Calista, Donald. (Eds.). (1990). Implementation and the Policy Process, Opening Up the Black Box. New York: Greenwood Press. Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron. (1980). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weatherley, Richard and Lipsky, Michael. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review. Vol 47, No 2, pp. 171-197. Winter, S. (1990) in Palumbo, Dennis and Calista, Donald. (Eds.). Implementation and the Policy Process, Opening Up the Black Box. New York: Greenwood Press. | |
|
