3.2 POLICY ANALYSIS
3.2.4 POLICY MAKING
According to Ganapathy (Dyer 1999:45), in developing countries policy making is seen as more prestigious than implementation and it is to the formulation of policy that attention is paid. With regard to policy on educator post provisioning this was the case.
The policy actors focused their attention more on the formulation of the policy. They neglected implementation issues owing to the fact that implementation was a provincial function. Haddad (1995:19) notes that there are two essential dimensions of policy formulation: the how? (The process) and who does it? (The actors).
3.2.4.1 THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS
In terms of the ‘policy process’, Evans, Slack and Shaw (1995:2) contend that the policy process shows two distinct views. The first view depicts policy making as a set of stages or steps which follow a logical order (functionalist perspective). The second view depicts policy making as a messy, fluid process which cannot be reduced to a simple linear model (conflict perspective). It emphasizes the unpredictability of the policy process.
Instead of seeing the stages as rigidly sequential, each one is viewed as a challenge to be faced at some point in the process of policy formulation and implementation.
The Policy Process as Discrete Steps and Stages
Harman’s (1984:16) view of the policy process is based on the notion that the handling of policy by any department or agency generally involves a series of sequential stages or phases. Each stage is different, both in terms of what happens to the policy actors and their policy efforts, and their results. He identifies the policy process as comprising of four stages, namely, emergence and problem identification; policy formulation and authorization; implementation; and termination or change.
De Clercq (1997) and the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) (1995), agree that this is one view of the policy process. De Clercq (1997:29), however, labels the four stages differently, namely, policy initiation; policy formulation;
implementation; and evaluation. Both De Clercq and Harman conceptualize policy formulation and implementation as two separate and distinct activities. This top-down
(bureaucratic process model) approach, according to Bowe, Ball and Gold (1996:274), creates the perception that policy ‘gets done’ to people by a chain of implementers whose roles are clearly defined by legislation.
Policy Making as a Fluid Process
In practice, the elements of the policy cycle do not take place as a series of discrete steps but are experienced as a continuously interactive process (‘bargaining and conflict’
model). Some stages may be skipped and others may be concurrent or follow a different order, depending on the nature of the policy itself (De Clercq 1997:129).
According to Evans, Slack and Shaw (1995:4), at all stages, affected stakeholders seek to make changes which address their concerns. In this sense, the formulation of policy options is not something which happens only at the beginning of a cycle, but is continuous, with important inputs being made even after the adoption of a particular policy option. Thus, even well into the implementation stage, powerful actors can and will seek to influence the translation of policies into regulations and actions. Given the large number and variety of factors and forces involved in policy making, ‘pure rationality’ should not be expected as the policy process ‘is fluid, even messy, but still largely understandable’.
Policy making in respect of educator post provisioning was in fact a messy and fluid process and did not follow the neat and discrete steps and stages as identified by Harman (1984) and De Clercq (1997). The policy initiation and formulation stage was fraught with problems. The National Minister of Education after unilaterally initiating and formulating policy was forced to withdraw such policy owing to pressure from educator unions. The Ministry of Education was, therefore, forced to go back to the drawing board and consult with trade union organisations on the formulation of policy. Notwithstanding the attempts by educator unions to influence the policy formulation process to suit the needs of its membership, the state officials stood firm in their proposals and ensured that their concerns were articulated in policy. Despite the unions attempts to campaign at a political level to influence the policy formulation stage, this was not fruitful.
The implementation stage was not without problems either. This stage posed the greatest challenge because whilst policy was formulated nationally, implementation of policy was driven provincially. At provincial level there was constant policy re-contextualisation and re-creation. Further, the capacity of officials to implement the educator post provisioning policy was often called into question.
3.2.4.2 THE POLICY ACTORS
The question of who participates in the policy process is an important one. Ranson (1995:441) reasons that this is dependent on how policy is generated. In other words, is policy generated and controlled ‘top-down’ or is involvement a democratic process in which representatives take part in all or some stages of policy? Or is involvement a political process dependent upon power and ownership of ‘resources’? Policy generation with regard to educator post provisioning was supposed to be a democratic process with representatives from the state sector and employee sector participating in the process at national ELRC. However, the manner in which policy generation unfolded was reminiscent of a ‘top-down’ approach with the state officials using their power to ‘push through’ policy.
According to Harman (1984:18), the actors involved with education policy fall into two groups: the official and non-official. The official actors are individuals or organizational entities which have legally-based responsibilities such as:
• Actors from levels of government (president, ministers, members of parliament)
• The Education Ministry and their senior officials – While Ministers hold formal authority, in practice a great deal of authority is delegated to senior officials.
• Government agencies outside the education portfolio which play a part in developing and implementing policy
The main non-official actors are interest groups, political parties and the media. Of the interest groups, the key players are educator unions and parent associations. The major educator unions are important because at any time they will be exerting pressure about a wide range of topics at a variety of pressure points. In trying to influence policy on
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.