Background Research

Research conducted by others

Research on curriculum implementation is international in nature but the results of Hong Kong research are consistent with international findings. Most recently, Morris & Scott (2003) have argued that Hong Kong has inherited many of the constraints faced by the colonial regime. Its disarticulated political system has affected government efforts to reform the school curriculum. Examples of implementation, like cross-curricular themes (Morris & Chan, 1998), medium of instruction and curriculum integration (Lam, 2004), and recent curriculum reform measures (Lam, 2001) show that centre-periphery curriculum development has not been able to accommodate the expectations and interests of teachers. New curriculum policies have, for the most part, remained at the level of good intentions and curriculum reform has proved elusive and difficult. This was shown on a large scale when attempts were made to introduce the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) (Morris, 2002). Adamson and Morris (2000)have shown that for the most part, these attempts were neither understood nor implemented in Hong Kong classrooms. Interestingly, the broad analysis of these failures usually suggests some deficits within teachers.

At classroom level teachers are significant figures in deconstructing and reconstructing the curriculum. In this sense the curriculum is best seen as text capable of multiple interpretations. Thus the way teachers think and conceptualize the curriculum has become an important issue (Thompson, 1992). Studies of teachers’ thinking and beliefs have become an important the research focus in the last two decades. This research has found that teachers’ beliefs are like psychological understandings, premises or propositions about the world and are held as the true statements (Richardson, 1996). These “true” statements help teachers to conceptualize their work and eventually direct their actions. Such beliefs may or may not be related to policy intentions.

Hong Kong occupies a unique place reflecting both Chinese and Western values. A distinctive Chinese culture has been identified in Hong Kong society, government bureaucracy and individual values (Lau & Kuan, 1995). In the realm of education, Chinese culture was found to influence policy implementation at different levels of the education reforms in Hong Kong. Dimmock’s (1998) study found that the imported westernized reforms did not synchronize with the current feature of the Hong Kong education system which was dominated by Chinese culture. In the classroom implementation, it was found that Chinese culture has a role in teachers’ belief and its development (Chan & Fok, 2000; Chan & Lam, 2003). The influence of Chinese culture on curriculum implementation, therefore, needs to be an issue of ongoing research.

The current state of the field of curriculum implementation research in Hong Kong suggests that what is known is largely negative. Policies have little impact, schools remain resistant and teachers operate within their own theoretical frames of reference when it comes to new policies. Yet the social value of curriculum implementation remains paramount as current reforms seek to align schools to the needs of new social, political and economic challenges facing Hong Kong. The need to extend this research is more important than ever.

Research conducted by us

We have been studying curriculum policy and its implementation in different contexts and at various levels and these efforts provide the background for the current research. Kennedy has studied curriculum implementation in jurisdictions other than Hong Kong and across curriculum areas, vocational education (2001), multicultural education (1986), civic education (Kennedy et. al., 2002) or national curriculum (1988). A recent focus has been at system level in Hong Kong (Kennedy,in press; Fok; 2002a, 2002b, 2004). We have also focused on schools (Kennedy 1992, Fok, 2003) and more recently on teachers (Kennedy et al, 2002; Chan & Lam, 2003; Chan & Fok, 2001 and Chan, 2003).

We now wish to extend this by integrating research from other disciplines to provide a more holistic picture of curriculum policy implementation. We wish to refocus research on the nature of policy and the effectiveness of different policy instruments in securing policy objectives and how different policy communities are both constrained by and responsive too different kinds of policies and policy instruments. In this research conceptions of ‘soft’ policy and ‘hard’ policy will be central to developing a new approach to thinking about curriculum policy implementation used to inquire the possibility of maintaining coherence of curriculum implementation across different levels.

Soft Policy

The conceptualization of polices as ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ and the implications for policy implementation have received some attention from policy researchers in recent years. The conceptualization is commonly used in the fields of international law or international relations (Abbott & Snidal, 2000) and have recently used in relation to European Union policy (Torenvlied & Akkerman, 2004; Ahonen, 2001). ‘ Hard’ policy is explicitly embedded in legislation, institutional objectives and commitments, and budgetary allocations. ‘Soft’ policy denotes forms of codes, guidelines and conventions which, although not binding in nature, exercise authority through persuasion, benchmarking and the setting of best practice rather than the law (Cini, 2001) ‘Soft’ policy is dependent on decisions, attitudes and interpretations by administrators based on their perception of what should be done.

‘Soft’ policy instruments, including content and method, are non-binding policy recommendations, guidelines, informational devices, or voluntary agreements (Torenvlied & Akkerman, 2004, p.37). In relation to curriculum, examples ‘soft’ policy instruments would include the broad policy guidelines, professional development opportunities, school evaluations and performance indicators, best practice dissemination and other voluntary agreements (those without legally binding commitments, sanctioning mechanisms and other enforcement procedures). Adapted from internationals law and European Union policy analysis (e.g. Hertin, Berkhout, Tyteca, & Wehrmeyer, 2003, p.3; Koulaimah-Gabriel, & Oomen, 1997; Torenvlied & Akkerman, 2004, p.37), ‘soft’ policy and ‘hard’ policy are different in nature and substance (see Table 1). ‘Soft’ policy has no enforcement mechanisms and allows maximum space for implementers. ‘Hard’ policy, on the other hand, can be enforced through the legal system and is only subject to legal interpretation. In multi-level systems, ‘soft’ policy implementation will depend on the effectiveness of policy instruments in persuading implementers to adopt and use the policy since there are neither enforcement or compliance mechanisms In multi-level curriculum implementation involving system, school and classroom levels, ‘soft’ policy is more likely to :

• Create flexibilities that make coherence difficult within and across levels (Koulaimah-Gabriel, & Oomen, 1997);
• Adapt to different contexts at different levels (Hertin, Berkhout, Tyteca, & Wehrmeyer, 2003; Torenvlied & Akkerman, 2004) thus meeting local needs but perhaps ignoring policy objectives

Table 1: Characteristics of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ policy

This comparison highlights the importance of understanding the characteristics of the policy to be implemented. Where policy implementation is characterized by ‘soft’ policy characteristics, implementation will always be problematic.

Major concern of this research

In short, ‘soft’ policy implementation theory changes the focus of implementation research from an exclusive emphasis on stakeholders to a concern with the nature and substance of the policy being implemented and the policy instruments that are put into place to persuade stakeholders to implement that policy. With these understandings, a better assessment can be made of the extent of policy coherence achieved at the local level. The recent curriculum reform in Hong Kong (CDC, 2001) will be selected as a case for investigating curriculum policy implementation from a ‘soft’ policy perspective.

Summing up

The above summary shows that the researchers have a broad background in implementation policy research. Yet an overview of the full range of research in this area indicates that while it has documented implementation failures and described the features of implementation contexts, it has not to date focused on developing frameworks that help to understand these failures or provide better support to promote successful implementation This seems particularly important in light of Hong Kong’s current curriculum reform agenda (CDC, 2001). What is needed is a better set of lenses through which to view implementation, better ways to explain it and more productive ways to support it. Such are the purposes of the present proposal.