Four Dimensions of Educational Policy Theory

Comprehending educational policy necessitates a contemplation of the influence and intention of policies along the four dimensions of policy theory. By utilizing the four dimensions of policy theory including normative, structural, constituentive, and technical, individuals can determine the significant dimensions of the policy (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). Policy evaluation is especially important in an era of educational accountability and the formation and implementation of educational policies. Policies are conducive for improving education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). This treatise will assess the ways in which the four dimensions of policy theory can be applied to policy evaluation. In addition, this treatise will include how policy evaluation can improve educational effectiveness, including curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Four Dimensions of Policy Theory
Policy theories can assemble along four dimensions normative, structural, constituentive, and technical. This framework enables individual to understand policymaking in education through various perspectives. The normative dimension consists of the values, standards, and philosophies that compel societies to undertake improvement and change. All policies, therefore, are a reflection of society. The structural dimension contains government measures, and an organization's structure, methods, and procedures that declare and advocate educational policies. The examination of the responsibility and influence of federal, state, and local organizational structures is significant to comprehending the way organizations affect educational policy. The constituentive dimension consists of the assumptions of individuals, interest groups, and recipients who exert power over, are a party to, and profit from the policymaking process. This area may include teachers, parents, administrators, business leaders, or government officials. Concerns that this dimension focuses on includes who has a means to influence, how these groups make their desires known, and the degree to which opposing interests can cooperate and find a resolution for all. Here is where the formation of policy takes place by those groups that are both for and against them. The technical dimension incorporates the development, practice, implementation, and assessment of educational policymaking. The comprehension of educational policy necessitates that policymakers contemplate the influence and consequences of educational policies along these dimensions (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Four Dimensions of Policy Theory and Application to Policy Evaluation
Normative Dimension
When applying the normative dimension to policy evaluation, if the outcome maintains the principles of researchers and educators, then an acknowledgement that a respective policy is valuable and a continuation and expansion of the policy should result. If the outcome does not maintain the principles of researchers and educators, then they may question the data, criticize the process, and discard the outcomes (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). Evaluation of policies maintains a substantial normative component as researchers establish values, how those values may influence the resources to use, adequate standards, and clarification of the outcomes.
A fundamental disagreement in the normative dimension regarding policy evaluation is if significance in the examination exists. A separation transpires involving the positivist and postmodern views. Postpositivists reject the scientific viewpoints of scientific examination of the positivists, which are inductive and deductive observations to education policy evaluation. The inductive observation is contingent upon inferring assumptions from data. In a deductive observation, researchers can make, authenticate, test, and perhaps reject a hypotheses (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). Postmodernists dispute the positivists' point of view concerning policy evaluation in education. When comparing the two views some positive attributes are present, familiar standards and values offer conformity to individuals who evaluate policy, who can then function collectively from a parallel framework, recognize comparable research methods and practices, and acknowledging each other's outcomes. Familiar convictions are essential to improve the effectiveness of policies since researchers can then focus on methods and outcomes. Standards aid to resolve when and by whom policies in education ought to be evaluated, and aid in the formation of conceptual frameworks. Consequently, evaluating policies as to their form and consequences is normative and as individuals shape and modify policies, they assume qualities with meaning (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Structural Dimension
In the structural dimension, policy evaluation in education indicates the organization of education at the federal, state, and local levels. An examination of educational policy and the reflection of the federal, state, and local relations are present. At one time, the concentration of dispute in educational policy was the impact of federal and state programs on educational institutions. The frustration of educators with the interference at the federal level might distort the assessment of federal programs and their value to educational institutions (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
One level of government, federal, state, or local, frequently create and explain policies then implement and evaluate policies in classrooms and educational institutions. The macrosystem generates policies outside of educational institutions, and performance transpires inside of educational institutions. Unfortunately, evaluations are frequently vague and not on time. Consequently, state legislature may endorse a policy, implement in educational institutions, and fail to evaluate the policy until years later by individuals who possibly do not realize the original objective of the legislation (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). The macrosystem constructs policy, and the lower levels apply the policy; however, individuals fail to establish who will evaluate the policy beforehand. The value of policies is dependent upon the clarity and accuracy of the policy. When objectives are understandable and well written in the policy, execution and comprehension are more probable to take place (Saunders, 2006). Interpretating the intricate structure of federal policies is crucial to evaluate the influence of the policy on students and educational institutions. The levels of government should organize and establish the intention of policy evaluation, acquire data, a design for analysis, and a way to publicize the results. Kirst and Jung (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli& Randall, 2004) contend that to discount the political aspect of policymaking is to fail to appreciate the essence of policymaking and the environment in which evaluation takes place.
Constituentive Dimension
In regard to the constituentive dimension and educational policy evaluations, persuasive interest groups frequently focus on specific programs, as a result, employment and resources may be in jeopardy with the evaluation of policy (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). Difficulty often arises when one does not have knowledge of the policy, the questions, the methods, or the response to the outcomes of the evaluation. Constituents maintain a personal and professional concern in the application, implementation, and evaluation of policy (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Constituents frequently play a role in legislating for educational policies, implementing them, and assessing their value for effectiveness. Constituents may attempt to manage the evaluation process or perform an evaluation of their own to make certain that the assessment, analysis, promotion, and disbursement of the results are complimentary to the policy, if the policy is in their interest. On the other hand, if the policy is not in their best interest the constituents may attempt to dispute the policy by finding adverse assessments of the policy. Therefore, constituents do not overlook the evaluation of educational policies but compel the evaluation and adequacy of the policy. When constituents agree on a policy support is present, but when constituents disagree with the policy, or see the policy as a threat, then constituents obstruct or complicate policy data and challenge efforts for implementation (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Technical Dimension
In the technical dimension, policy evaluation necessitates an appreciation of the realistic influences of policies aspects of educational institutions including time, educators, resources, and instruction. This dimension is significant if individuals are to comprehend what will take place realistically with the implementation of a new policy (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). Individuals may attach a form of policy evaluation upon implementation or the evaluation may take place years after implementation. Individuals may make policy evaluation able to test in other circumstances or may opt for meaning in the policy (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
In addition, policy evaluation in the technical dimension may be cross-sectional or maintain a longitudinal technique. A sample may be taken to see if changes occur, or tracking over a time. Another technical concern is who will perform the policy evaluation including staff at the educational institution, the state education department, or the U.S. Department of Education (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). When individuals complete policy evaluation in the short-term, an examination of formative qualities including implementation, acceptance, and involvement exists. Summative qualities are drawn from long-term evaluation and may pose several problems including lost data; loss of interest in the policy, and evaluation may be too late to amend policies that are not working (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Policy Evaluation and Improvement of Educational Effectiveness
Educational effectiveness including curriculum, instruction, and assessment are among the most difficult topics of study yet the most significant for students (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004; Saunders, 2006). More and more, leaders are making education a main concern, which requires accountability systems to measure effectiveness and introduce policies that enhance educational performance (Lingenfelter, 2003). Through policy evaluation, educators can determine if an accountability system encompasses the conditions to expand the capabilities of the educational institution to convey high quality curriculum and instruction, formulate assessment, and increase student learning (Chester, 2005).
At the center of curriculum policy is the opposing forces of local benefits and federal and state objectives, standards, and testing (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004; Fuller, Wright, Gesicki, & Kang, 2007). Curriculum policymakers endure insufficient knowledge, time, and resources, and regularly neglect to consider policy changes with individuals the policy will concern (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The establishment of standards, aligning the curriculum, and assessing the outcomes, are three mutually dependent, valuable policy efforts. The practice of recognizing what to teach, how to teach it, and to what degree of capability is applicable to all subjects and all government levels generates one of the least understood and central elements of education policy evaluation (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004; Fuller, Wright, Gesicki, & Kang, 2007; Lingenfelter, 2003). According to Schoenfeld (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004) contends that this practice is becoming more political. Many states institute rigorous testing procedures in an attempt to address accountability (Chester, 2005; Fuller, Wright, Gesicki, & Kang, 2007). Consequently, this practice compels teachers to focus on teaching the skills and knowledge for students to pass such tests ignoring information that is not on the test (Louis, Febey & Schroeder, 2005). Therefore, policy evaluation is crucial to those policies that influence what students are taught, under what conditions, and to what extent. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are essential and rest on the establishment and implementation of policies by local, state, and federal governments, administrators, and teachers (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004; Lingenfelter, 2003).
Conclusion
Policy evaluation is important, conveys ideas, and is relative to education. The adaptation of a complete four-dimensional framework can enhance the understanding of educational policy and lead to school improvement. The failure to examine educational policy along the four dimensions will result in insufficient notions of the policy and consequently, deficient policy (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). Too often after determination, implementation, and funding of policy, individuals presume that the policy will be effective; without evaluation, the policy may not be effective at all. In consideration of policy evaluation and the four dimensional framework, policymaking is a normative process containing values, the basis is found in the organizational structure of policymaking and implementation, constituents affect policymaking and implementation, and policymaking includes a technical dimension, the process of developing and evaluating policy in education (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004). By applying the four dimensions of policy theory to policy evaluation, the overall educational effectiveness will improve including curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Policies influencing the teaching and learning of students is a significant objective (Chester, 2005; Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
References
Chester, M.D. (2005). Making valid and consistent inferences about school effectiveness from
multiple measures. Educational Measurement, Issues, and Practice, (24). Retrieved
November 28, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories
and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.
Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge no
child left behind? Educational Researcher, (36). Retrieved November 30, 2007
from ProQuest database.
Lingenfelter, P.E. (2003). Educational accountability. Change, (35). Retrieved November 28,
2007 from ProQuest database.
Louis, K.S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools:
Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (27).
Retrieved November 29, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Saunders, M. (2006). The presence of evaluation theory and practice in educational and
social development: Toward an inclusive approach. London Review of Education,(4). Retrieved November 30, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.