Policy frameworks and processes have a critical role to play in supporting the construction, growth and interaction of open learning communities. Policy analysis can help to identify and frame problems, challenges, opportunities and constraints. Policy dialogue can serve to build a complex shared vision between various actors in society. Policy statements can serve to elucidate goals, priorities, and values as well as to shape perceptions. Policy plans can provide the basis for rules and strategies to stimulate and regulate relationships and behavior. Policy learning can provide opportunities for engaging in critical reflection and creative action. In summary, policies can shape agendas, remove as well as create opportunities and barriers, legitimize or de-legitimize institutions, and define courses of action which will affect large numbers of people. They are powerful mechanisms for facilitating, sustaining and preventing broad-based change. If we believe this and we are serious about elaborating the concept of open learning communities, then we must also be concerned with transforming and developing strong policy frameworks and processes.
However, educational policy making efforts over the last 40 years have been largely ineffective throughout the world2. There exists today a profound crisis of legitimacy in the realm of educational policy making. This does not stem from not being able to get the policies "right" or weak implementation capacity (DAE, 1995), but rather, from a deeper struggle over discourse and power. "Discourses are not just about what can be said, and thought; but also about who can speak, when, where, and with what authority" (Foucault, 1981). Constructed within the context of modern democratic systems and nation-state structures, educational policy making is subject to the larger problems, i.e. the breakdown of social contracts and relationships and partisan politics, that confront these institutions. Most people around the world do not feel (either due to apathy or because of genuine powerlessness) that they can influence or shape policies at any level of society, particularly at the national, international and supranational levels. Leaders often appear to be guided by personal interests rather than broader public interests.
Just as the concept of open learning communities challenges us to think about learning and learning systems differently, it also calls for us to engage in thinking about educational policy making differently - to question dominant discourses and power in meaningful ways. Simply enacting policies on open learning communities using conventional assumptions, frameworks, processes, institutions, language, and relationships will not be a sufficient strategy for enabling or sustaining open learning communities. The following discussion attempts to move away from conventional models of educational policy making. In framing problems, goals, issues and solutions, it asks the reader to step outside of the black box of the school and of the nation-state - to move away from development goals geared towards human capital formation; from objectives of access, equity, quality, and efficiency; from absolutist debates over centralization vs. decentralization of management, public vs. private funding, etc.; and from traditional actors and institutions such as ministries of education, teachers, classrooms, and textbooks - and to consider alternative ways of looking at the world of learning.
This paper focuses on re-situating educational policy making within the broader notions of open learning and complex adaptive systems. It proposes that policies be developed to support the dynamic interactions that take place in the learning system ecology3 which is comprised of:
1) the larger environment that surrounds open learning communities
2) each individual open learning community
3) the individual learners who participate in learning.
The development of each open learning community is seen as being simultaneously influenced and defined by both its larger environment, its interaction with other learning communities, and by the learners who participate in it.
The following two sections focus on the scope and content of educational policies, and the processes and actors by which they are formulated and implemented. It is quite important that these consistently reflect the basic principles that underlie the concept of open learning communities. The paper concludes with a discussion of what is required to put these ideas into action.
In addition, educational policies fail to recognize the powerful, informal dynamic learning environments that exist and are continually emerging, largely because of the spread of various information and communication technologies, and the growth of informal networks. Burnett (1996, p. 6) describes that "Educational institutions which used to have control over knowledge and over its dissemination now find themselves in mediatized environments where education [schooling] is simply one of many different cultural experiences." Most ministries of education have failed to make clear policies in relation to various media such as newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet. In addition, traditionally grounded in the primacy of the nation-state, current educational policies fail to reflect the dual forces of globalization and localization which are sweeping across the world. This implies that learning communities are potentially much larger than boundaries of the nation state and at the same time are much smaller than these boundaries.
Within the context of this discussion, several implications for future policy directions begin to emerge. Two important priorities for widening the scope and content of educational policies include (a) recognizing the diversity of learners and that learning processes must take place at both individual and organizational levels, and (b) seeing learning as taking place within mediatized environments. A heuristic framework comprised of three sets of policy objectives that advance these priorities is proposed below. This framework attempts to incorporate several elements through which learning is mediated - language, technology and tools, values, human relationships, and information and images. It is shaped by belief that rigid distinctions between formal, non-formal and informal learning experiences are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The framework deliberately does not assign responsibilities to any specific institution as it tries to flexibly allow for the multiple roles that any institution must play e.g., a distance learning organization may simultaneously serve as an environment supporting several different learning communities, as an open learning community, and as an actor within a wider learning community. For the sake of illustration, sample policies from around the world are mentioned to elaborate on certain objectives. However, it should be clarified at the outset that there is no one "right" policy framework. It is important that the exact scope and content of a particular policy framework vary according to the specific situation.
The process of educational policy making is extremely complex, filled with contradictions and uncertainties, and influenced by many dynamic and powerful forces. Traditional assumptions underlying educational policy formation have failed to reflect this. Policy making was viewed as taking place within a closed system. It was believed that the process could be controlled and predicted using mechanistic procedures and centralized institutions. It was also assumed that policies could be standardized and transferred along a wide spectrum of beneficiary groups, disregarding the fact that people differ from one another and their circumstances also differ. There was little attempt to understand the political economy of a situation. This resulted in a linear model of policy formation that was based on an input-process-output-outcome policy cycle7.
Such "stages" models have since been critiqued. Porter (1995, p. 13) argues that "we should not assume that policy making is a highly coherent and rational process, with a beginning, a middle, and an end - that each part leads logically and inexorably to each succeeding part." According to DAE (1996), policy making is a messy, fluid process which cannot be reduced to a simple linear mode. Crouch et al. (1993, p. 11) describe one incarnation of this messy process: "Policy change usually takes place in a crisis mode. Policy itself is often nothing but the accretion of responses to past crises and half-hearted attempts to implement donor recommendations, operationalize vague ideological concepts from other sectors, or copy reforms from other countries." Under such conditions, Crouch et al. see policymaking more as a negotiation/bargaining process which takes place in the setting of a policy marketplace. It is comprised of diverse, competing groups, each trying to preserve and further their own vested interests i.e., state-affiliated bureaucracies, certain industries, political parties, teachers' unions, international donors.
Porter (1995) attempts to capture the processes with a multiple streams model. "There are three process streams through which participants affect agendas. People recognize problems, generate proposals for policy change, and engage in such political activities as pressure group lobbying and election campaigns" (p. 18). The separate streams of problems, policies, and politics each have lives of their own and are developed according to the rationale of the institutions to which they are linked. Solutions, problems, ideas, people and choices are all mixed together. Alliances, preferences and perceptions of policy actors are continually changing.
This discussion on the policy making process has several implications for developing policies for open learning communities. First, it means that we must move away from models that view policies in terms of top-down governmental declarations that are "officialized" in documents such as reports of special national commissions; the country's educational plan; the Ministry of Education Acts, Orders or Circulars; and reports of international agencies. Change should no longer be viewed solely as being centrally stimulated. We should see multiple policy processes in operation at institutional levels ranging from individual learning communities to local, district, regional, national, international, supranational groupings. Rather than being forced to adopt policy blueprints, each of these institutional formations should be encouraged to initiate and develop their own policies on learning. This requires a different framework for thinking about who are policy makers, what their roles are, and what their area of jurisdiction is. The role of educational policymaking should no longer be the sole domain of sectoral ministries. Institutions concerned with supporting learning, whether they be schools, NGOs, media groups, distance learning providers, etc. must increasingly see themselves as important policymaking entities. Policy processes must be continually concerned with creating spaces for allowing alternative voices to be heard.
Second, policy formulation and implementation should not be viewed as discrete activities but rather as a continuous learning and experimentation effort. Rather than looking at policies from a fixed-state point of view, we may wish to conceive of a system of rolling policies which are continually monitored, reflected upon, discussed and appropriately modified as time progresses. Policy processes must play a dual role of implementing a vision as well as continually creating the vision. Underlying this policy learning system should be a strong emphasis on active, ongoing policy learning by organizational entities at different levels, including the citizenry at large, who are involved in the process. Such a system should be supported by data, analysis and dialogue (Healey, 1994). To make this exercise meaningful, however, would imply some dramatic changes in these tools. Data on learning would have to move beyond simply looking at the formal sector. If policy makers really want to understand what is going on in a learning system, they will need not only a comprehensive system of indicators but a full research portfolio which is capable of looking at mediatized environments, information networks and the diversity of learners and learning processes. Analytical tools must also be reworked to take into account more dynamic multidisciplinary relationships and to discourage the tendency to settle for first-order solutions (Darling-Hammond, 1992). These should be geared towards continually raising difficult questions rather than providing quick-fix answers. Institutions that wish to become involved in policy and decisionmaking processes should also become involved in data collection and analysis activities, rather than having this work done for them by others.
Dialogue is probably the most critical of these three elements and is the one requiring the most change as it fundamentally relates to issues of participation. Botkin, Elmandjra, and Malitza (1979) describe the traditional thinking that guides dialogue. "The conventional, often unarticulated, conception of how societies learn usually starts with one or more centers of concentrated competence as the emanaters of new discoveries, theories, beliefs and solutions. These new ideas are then disseminated to larger circles of people and the public at large. The role of society at large is reduced to adjusting to and consuming the discoveries and knowledge produced at centers of expertise" (p. 81). Crouch (1993) elaborates on this by describing his model of policy dialogue as a process of marketing. "To put it crudely, policy dialogue is a highly sophisticated, carefully crafted sales process that creates the feeling of inclusiveness and co-ownership of reform. The important goal is to create ownership of the decisions after the fact" (p. 19). Such models of only involving stakeholders in information sharing and consultation and excluding them from the initiation and conceptualization represent a dangerous form of manipulation and must be strongly challenged.
Participation must go beyond mere invitations to accept given solutions or ingenious attempts to capture goodwill and support for given products. Participation is not simply about expanding the range of stakeholders; rather, it should be geared around encouraging participatory conceptualization. Botkin, Elmandjra, and Malitza (1979) describe this ongoing exercise. "To encourage innovative societal learning, true participation must enable people to open and inspect the 'black boxes' of knowledge, to question their relevance and meaning, and to re-design, re-combine, and re-order them where necessary" (p. 81). Those involved in policy discussions must be encouraged to frame their own questions. Dialogue should also be seen as ongoing, not only as a one-time process. Media should be used to encourage this continual reflection and debate, and not just to transmit top-down declarations in mindless sound bites.
Third, we must try to introduce more flexibility into the process. Policy development is a continuous process that should not be circumscribed by artificial political or operational time frames or fiscal years. Part of the challenge is also identifying the right timing (i.e., windows of opportunity) for catalyzing policy change processes. This may require the development of special policies that support an ongoing process of identifying opportunities. Benveniste (1989) describes that we need policies that continually allow us to find out that change is needed. He says that we need policies that allow us to bend existing rules. There is also need for temporary authority structures that allow us to experiment and modify what we are doing. Such structures should be comprised as intersectoral work teams. Organizational learning also requires a different framework of incentives. In order to seize opportunities and learn, we often have to take risks, make errors, and correct them. Few organizations currently reward those who take risks and make mistakes. Many policies, in fact, encourage people to hide mistakes or, worse, to remain inactive.
Finally, it is also important to encourage the continuity of actors who are involved. Effective dialogue is premised on trust, understanding and a willingness to compromise, which can only happen when actors know each other. Continuity is also particularly important for building up an institutional memory. Many things go unwritten or are understood in the policy formation process. There is always, though, a tension that must be well-managed between continuity and bringing in new people with fresh ideas and perspectives.
Under such resistance, facilitating a shift in policy direction will require a new type of commitment from all of us. "Establishing policies and programs to enhance innovative learning are dependent on at least one premise: a willingness to initiate fundamental processes of change, even when all of their implications are not known with total certainty in advance" (Botkin, Elmandjra, and Malitza, 1979, p. 87; emphasis added). This requires that we are willing to question our own privileged roles as "experts" and "authorities." It also means that we must see ourselves as learners - building a vision, not simply implementing one. Our optimism must stem from the realization that we are not starting from ground-zero. Many cases of good practice already exist. Many positive experiences have taken place with new opportunities emerging every day. Many changes are already dynamically taking place. Our task must then start with continually linking these experiences into a coherent vision and building a critical mass of partners around the world. We must also focus on developing more robust frameworks and methodologies that both integrate our understanding about learners and learning processes and complex systems, and allow us to continually "see" new realities. Finally, we must develop more tools which encourage people to engage in processes of participatory conceptualization and, based on this, to develop policies that allow them to transform their communities.
Botkin, J., M. Elmandjra, & M. Malitza. (1979). No limits to learning: Bridging the human gap. A report to the Club of Rome. Oxford, UK: Pergammon Press.
Burnett, R. (1996). Networks of knowledge/networks of learning. UNESCO Learning Without Frontiers (LWF) Advisory Task Force Meeting, held at UNESCO, Paris, 25-26 November 1996. Paris, France: UNESCO (LWF).
Coletta, N. & G. Perkins. (1995). Participation in education. Environment Department Papers, Participation Series, Paper No.1. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Crouch, L., E. Vegas & R. Johnson. (1993). Policy dialogue and reform in the education sector: necessary steps and conditions. USAID Advocacy Series Education and Development. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
DAE - Association for Development of African Education (1996). Formulating education policy: Lessons and experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. Six case studies and reflections from the DAE biennial meeting held in Tours, France, in October 1995. Paris, France: Association for the Development of African Education, c/o UNESCO (IIEP).
Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Educational indicators and enlightened policy. Educational Policy 6(3), 235-265.
Davis, S. and K. Ebbe (ed.), (1993). Traditional knowledge and sustainable development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings No.4. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R.Young (ed.) Untying the text. London, UK: Routledge.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Healey, H. (December 1994). Policy dialogue and policy reform: Reflections on the South African experience. Staff Working Paper. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
ITU and UNESCO. (May 1995). The right to communicate at what price? Economic constraints to the effective use of telecommunications in education, science, culture and in the circulation of information. Paris, France: International Telecommunications Union and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Land, S. & M. Hannafin. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories in action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 44 (3).
Lynch, J. (1994). Provision for Children with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region. World Bank Technical Paper Number 261. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Marquardt, M. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Perkins, David. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Porter, R. (January 1995). Knowledge utilization and the process of policy formation: Toward a framework for Africa. Washington, DC: USAID, Africa Bureau, Office of Sustainable Development.
Psacharopolous, G. (1990). Why educational policies fail. World Bank Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Rawley, C. (1994). Ecology as the basis for environmental education and sustainable development. The Forum for Advancing Basic Education and Literacy 3(3),7-8.
Republic of South Africa. (Draft September 1994). Education and training in a democratic South Africa: The first steps to develop a new system. Pretoria and Capetown, South Africa: Secretariat Education and Training White Paper.
Zenor, S. (March 1996). Developing an electronic information access policy. TechTrends,41 (2), 2.
Zoglin, R. (1996). Rating wars. Time Magazine, December 23, 1996
issue.
2. For example, a 1986 study by Craig (cited in Psacharopolous 1990), which reviewed 153 educational policies in sub-Saharan Africa, found that only 8% of these were either mostly or fully implemented. Another recent World Bank review of 145 educational policies showed that less than 10% were partly or completely implemented (Coletta and Perkins, 1995). - back
3. According to Rawley (1994, p. 4), "An ecological world acknowledges that systems are in a constant state of change and transformation based on differentiation of species, experiences, and ways of being which are intricately inter-connected and inter-related." - back
4. Psacharopolous (1990) places educational policies into the following categories:
6. Botkin, Elmandjra, and Malitza (1979, p. 35) define autonomy as the "right and capacity to decide upon and to construct a coherent system of objectives, strategies, ways and means, and alternative paths of development." Integration involves "the capacity to enter into wider human relationships, to cooperate for common purposes, to make linkages with others, to understand larger systems, and to see the whole of which one is part." - back
7. The stages model is typically comprised of the following:
| Top of document | ICDE Article Index | LWF Documents | LWF Activities | LWF Links |
|---|