3.2 POLICY ANALYSIS
3.2.5 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
educator provisioning, the major educator union, the SADTU used mass action as a tool to get state officials to re-negotiate aspects of the policy which was not in the interests of the educators and the learners.
Which policy actors are particularly important depends on the context, the nature of the policy being considered and the stage of the policy process. In the South African context everyone - from the World Bank to the trade unions – was involved in shaping education policy. However, not all actors have to participate equally at all stages of the policy process.
The policy actors involved in generating policy on educator provisioning were the parties to the national ELRC viz. the state officials and employee representatives (trade unions).
These policy actors, in theory, were expected to canvass the views of their representative constituencies and table mandated positions on educator provisioning. The extent to which this did or did not happen, however, is a subject of debate. In the unfolding of policy formulation on educator post provisioning, it is important to note that the policy proposals were in fact formulated by the state officials. With the state officials comprising fifty percent of the bargaining council, all the state needed was one other employee grouping to side with its proposals in order to get the policy adopted. Because the unions are not homogenous entities, driven by the same values and beliefs, they could not find common ground on a collective employee position on educator provisioning.
This weakened the unions as a collective in the bargaining process. Consequently, this strengthened the state’s position and they were able to get the policy adopted at national ELRC.
Van Meter and Van Horn (Hill 1984:129) define the implementation process as ‘those actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions’. According to Lane (1993:91)
‘implementation refers to the bringing about, by means of outputs, of outcomes that are congruent with the original intention. He adds that implementation has a double meaning:
‘to give practical effect to’ or execution on the one hand, and ‘fulfill’ or accomplishment on the other.
In the policy arena, there has often been the erroneous, implicit assumption that once policies are adopted, full implementation would follow naturally. This assumption, according to De Clercq (1997:129), is based on the view that the translation of policy into action or practice is an unproblematic and smooth process which requires strong controls to ensure that the bureaucracy executes faithfully the directives of the political bosses.
The policy, according to Dyer (1999:47) is seen as paramount and resistance to it tends to be seen as irrational, and a barrier to implementation. When a discrepancy develops between intended policies and implemented policies, it is attributed to the lack of institutional and resourcing capacities of the state bureaucrats or inadequate control systems over the bureaucrats.
McLaughlin (De Clercq 1997:129) problematises the implementation process in order to explain the inevitable gap that develops between intended and actual policies. For him, implementation is not about automatic transmission but is a process of bargaining and negotiation between the various local and national actors. Just as policies are not made in a vacuum, they are not carried out in a vacuum. According to McLaughlin, the implementing bureaucrats will always put their own interpretations and meanings to the intended policies and in the process, will use their power or discretion to subvert or transform the original goals of the policy. In recognizing the power of the implementers, policy implementation analysts argue that effective policy making should reckon with and anticipate implementation problems in order to strategize accordingly and influence or constrain the agents of the implementation process.
Pressman and Wildavsky (Hill 1984:30) postulate that in order to ensure successful implementation, the degree of co-operation between agencies in the implementation chain has to be very close to one hundred percent if a situation is not to occur in which a number of small deficits cumulatively creates a large shortfall. They thus introduce the concept of ‘implementation deficit’ when enacted policies are not fully implemented due to a lack of synergy between agencies in the implementation chain.
Craig (1990) in his study titled Comparative African Experiences in Implementing Educational Policies highlights certain factors which influence policy implementation.
These factors will be used as benchmarks in analyzing the implementation of policy on educator post provisioning.
3.2.5.1 THE POLICY MESSAGE
Craig (1990:24) identifies three fundamental components of a policy message, namely, the substance of a policy; the means specified for putting a policy into effect; and the way in which the substance and the means are communicated.
With respect to substance of a policy, the issue is one of realism. Among those who maintain implementation failures can be traced back to unrealistic policies, there are two general positions which have a bearing on policy on educator post provisioning:
• In terms of the problem addressed by the post provisioning policy, to what extent is there a need for social and attitudinal changes?
• In terms of the policy message and objectives, to what extent does implementation of the policy result in undesirable consequences for the recipients?
The means specified for implementation could also be a constraining factor. For any given policy there may be numerous possible approaches to implementation. Taking into account the resistance any innovative policy is likely to confront, it is important that policy makers because of their familiarity with the policy goals select and if necessary, institute an appropriate implementation strategy. With regard to policy on educator
provisioning it is important to note that the formulating agency and implementing agency are two separate entities. Therefore, consultation of individuals involved in implementing policy would be an imperative in order to institute an appropriate implementation strategy.
The way in which a policy is communicated can have important effects on the prospects for implementation. Implementation is more likely if a policy is straightforward and if its goals and mechanisms are expressed precisely and explicitly. Harman (1984:25) contends that an ideal policy is one that is clear with unambiguous goals. Gunn (Hill 1984:131) adds that there must be a complete understanding of, and agreement upon, the objectives to be achieved; and these conditions must persist throughout the implementation process.
In terms of implementing policy on educator post provisioning it is, therefore, vitally important that all role players in the implementation chain are au fait with the goals and objectives of the policy and mechanisms involved in implementation. The lack of clarity and openness, and incoherence or vagueness can leave implementers without much needed guidance and provide openings for those bent on obstruction of policy.
3.2.5.2 THE BUREAUCRATS AND THE ADMINISTRATORS
Within the African context, and more specifically within education ministries, there is a lack of experience and poor training of administrators and school inspectors. Officials have been criticized for the inadequate delivery systems that have been instituted, for their lack of interest in seeing projects through to completion and their inability to work in harmony with those in other agencies (Craig 1990:50).
In terms of implementation of policy on educator post provisioning at school sites, the role of the SEM is pivotal. The extent to which they are able to provide strong leadership and reliable support to principals when they confront unanticipated problems and résistance from those who oppose policy is vital for implementation success.
3.2.5.3 THE EDUCATORS
Educators are sometimes seen as an obstacle to the implementation of policies. They may doubt that putting such policies into practice is worth the effort. They may believe that particular policy objectives cannot attain the intended goals. They may reject the theory used to justify the reform or may just rationalize that a particular policy will just not work. Educators also view new policies with a certain degree of suspicion. They may reason that a new policy will mean increased workloads without additional compensation (Craig 1990:52). Therefore, in terms of policy on educator post provisioning, the extent to which the outcomes of the implementation of the policy have positive pay-offs for them will be the deciding factor as to whether they oppose implementation or embrace it.
Further, the educators usually denied input when policies are formulated, compensate by concentrating their energies on transforming policies while efforts are being made to put them into effect. They may engage in a campaign to neutralize a distasteful policy (Craig 1990:56). This has often been the case with policy on educator post provisioning where educators, after mandating their unions, engaged in mass action which often culminated in teacher strikes. These actions were used by educators to pressurize the state into reviewing policy on educator post provisioning. This resistance by educators has been partially successful in derailing policy implementation.