Objectives

Key Issues

This research seeks to shift the focus of curriculum policy implementation away from its traditional concerns with teachers' failures to implement reforms and refocus it on the nature and substance of policy processes that are used to initiate and support reform. This change in focus is consistent with the general policy literature. So called 'top-down' and 'bottom up' approaches to the study of policy implementation have been critiqued and found wanting (Sabatier, 1986). A third approach, known as the ‘instrument choice approach’ (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995) has focused on the means used by governments to implement their policy agendas. In particular, policy instruments have been examined to gauge their effectiveness in bringing about policy objectives (Stone, 1997; Bridgeman and Davis, 1998). Policy instruments are related to the full range of resources governments have at their disposal such as budget allocations, human resource allocation, regulatory authority advocacy and service delivery. The selection of appropriate policy instruments will undoubtedly influence the implementation contexts and the success or otherwise of policy implementation. Thus governments, their policies and the support provided for them become the focus of this approach to the study of curriculum implementation. Schools and teachers, of course, cannot be ignored: but it is their interaction with selected policy instruments that will determine the level of implementation.

Problems to be addressed

Curriculum reform is a cornerstone of a much broader educational reform agenda in Hong Kong and across the Asia Pacific region. There has been a good deal of publicity recently about the problems the reforms are facing in Hong Kong schools. One response has been to provide additional funds to assist schools confront these 'problems. The assumption is that schools and teachers are somehow to blame for the failure of reform. This study aims to address the problem of reform failure from a different angle: by studying the adequacy of the Hong Kong government’s policy process in addressing reform issues. Four research questions will be addressed:

• How do curriculum policy makers understand the nature of curriculum policy making and how are curriculum policy instruments aligned with these conceptions?
• How do school level decision makers understand curriculum policy making, how consistent is it with the views of system level policymakers and how does this understanding influence curriculum policy implementation within their jurisdictions?
• How do teachers understand curriculum policy making, how consistent is with system and school level decision-makers’ view and what difference does it make to classroom implementation?
• How do Chinese cultural issues affect attitudes to both centralized and local curriculum policy implementation in Hong Kong?

Outcomes and significance

A new theoretical framework for understanding curriculum policy implementation will provide a coherent explanation for curriculum implementation processes in Hong Kong and thus make a contribution to theory development in an important area of social endeavor. Curriculum policies are frequently under-estimated in importance yet their failure or otherwise have the potential to influence the life chances many young people in Hong Kong. This project will focus on this important issue in an attempt to secure a better future for these young people.

Bridgeman, P. and Davis, G. (1998). The Australian policy handbook. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.

Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Sabatier, P.A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1) 21(48).

Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton.