APC-PISYS, tecnología de Pipo Systems

In attempting to develop a conceptual framework for analysis of policy reform in the education sector, the work of Ball (1990, 1991, 1994) and Bowe, et al. (1992) was adopted for purposes of this research. It enabled an analysis of policy that takes into account the politics that shape reform, the role of agenda setters and critically, the role of the implementing agencies.

Policy, as Ball (1993) pointed out, is difficult to define, and the ambiguity that could accompany analysis and evaluation could be compounded if it is not explicit. An important aspect of the research was to view policy as being both ‘text and discourse’ (Ball, 1993:11). Thus, policy is ‘both text and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted, as well as what is intended’ (Ball, 1993:10). The policy cycle approach is valuable, in that it views the nature of policy as a process and not as an end product. Interpretation of policy is open to all and it could be seen as a contested terrain, thus nullifying the predictability of policy outcomes. The approach was further developed to include the impact of policies on inequalities, social exclusion and how strategies could be developed to address problems of inequality. Critics of Ball argued that he had fallen into a Foucaultian trap and under-estimated the power of the state or the central role of the state in policy-making (Vidovich, 2001).

Ball (2001:210) referred to a kind of ‘policy technology’ that has permeated education:

A technology, a culture and a mode of regulation, or even a system of terror in Lyotard’s words, that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of control, attrition and change. The performances – of individual subjects or organizations – serve as measures of productivity or output, or displays of

‘quality’ or ‘moments’ of promotion or inspection. They stand for, encapsulate or represent the worth, quality or value of an individual or organization within a field of judgement.

In developing an evaluative framework, the tension between performativity and accountability was explored. According to Lyotard (1979:46), performativity is the best possible ‘input-output equation’. In undertaking for the purposes of this research, a textual analysis of the discourse of government documents, reporting systems and agencies indicate that there is a strong leaning towards new public management. In setting out the South African context, within which access is raised as beneficial and is viewed as a public good, the tension between evaluating outputs and outcomes versus evaluating the purpose of higher education manifests itself. In developing an evaluative framework, the research was mindful of the tension between the calibrated efficiency output of institutions and the consequences in the form of rewards/punitive measures of some of the policy instruments. Thus, the question of power of the state and accountability regimes needed to be balanced against the goal of access to higher education being laudable, but the performativity measures detract from achievement. Central to this was an exploration of whether or not there are other policy options that could have been exercised that would serve the same purpose.

The research approach adopted concurs with the theoretical position that seeks to align more closely, the ‘generation’ of policy and ‘implementation’ of policy (Bowe, et al., 1992:7). The approach to the research used a tripartite frame that views education policy as having three phases:

(i) Influence (generating policy);

(ii) Text production (policy statements); and (iii) Practice (implementation) (Bowe, et al., 1992).

The above phases provided a framework within which the research could accomplish the following:

(i) Establish the influences that initiated the development of policies in relation to access;

(ii) Enable the research to focus on the narrative and discourse of policy documents to understand the intent of the policies;

(iii) Evaluate if the implementation phase is aligned to both the influences and rationale for the policies and the actual policy statements;

(iv) Assess the extent to which the intent in policy narratives is translated into implementation; and

(v) Evaluate the extent to which the state policies and implementation strategies trigger responsiveness in higher education institutions.

The framework provided a basis for exploring the different stages of policy-making while recognising that there may be deviation at any of the three stages from the overall goals and purposes. As Ball (1993:126) stated:

Most policies are ramshackle, compromise, hit and miss affairs that are reworked, tinkered with, nuanced and inflected through a complex process of influence, text production and ultimately, re-creation in contexts of practice.

Bowe, et al. (1992:22) added:

Practitioners do not confront policy texts as naïve readers; they come from histories, with experience, with values and purposes of their own, they have vested interests in the meaning of policy. Policies will be interpreted differently, as the histories, experiences, values, purposes and interests, which make up the arena, differ. The simple point is that policy writers cannot control the meanings of their texts. Part of their texts will be rejected, selected out, ignored, deliberately misunderstood; responses may be frivolous, etc.

The value of using Ball’s (1993) framework in evaluating policy is that the state is not perceived as the sole architect of policy development and implementation. Ball’s framework is useful in that it makes provision for policy analysis to take into account both the role of the state and what they refer to as ‘the context of practice’ (Ball, 1993:22). This enables one to see the policy-making process as dynamic, with the role of the state defined, as well as the role of institutions that implement or receive policies for implementation. As much as Ball’s (1993) framework has come in for some criticism by those who advocate a more central and powerful role for the state, it lends itself to analysis of policy-making process particularly in a democratic and developing country where the processes of consultation, stakeholder input and institutional autonomy are still valued and respected (Hatcher & Troyna, 1994). It will be

demonstrated in this thesis that, despite state driven policies and regulation, the university sector still has latitude in terms of interpretation and implementation.