Abstract
With their positioning in the bureaucratic landscape, affiliated colleges in India historically have had a limited role in curriculum and exam policies and development, yet they are embedded in local communities where meaningful knowledge to best support them often lies. Moreover, affiliated college members, purported street-level bureaucrats who work at the intersections of policy and discretion, have a notably limited role. This policy study explores high-impact and emerging high-impact practices of affiliated college faculty members in India with regard to curriculum and exam policies. It proposes a new framework, the Four Tenets of Street-Level Bureaucracy Framework for Education Policy Discernment, based on Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy framework, to guide the analysis. Four high-impact practices and two emerging high-impact practices offer Indian higher education policymakers, faculty members at universities and colleges, and higher education institutions meaningful insight for policy adaptation consideration. The four high-impact practices are flexibility, change, and adaptation; successful coping and adapting; connecting theory and industry/practice; and belief in one's training and capacity leading to de facto policymaking at the micro level. The two emerging practices are establishing feedback channels from the bottom-up and re-envisioning broader faculty involvement in bureaucratic structures.

Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal, P. (2007). Higher education in India: Growth, concerns and change agenda. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(2), 197–207.
Agarwal, P. (2008). Indian higher education at the crossroads. International Higher Education, 51, 14–15.
Agarwal, P. (2009). Indian higher education: Envisioning the future. Sage.
Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-third of the globe: The future of higher education in China and India. Prospects, 39(1), 11–31.
Altbach, P. G. (2014). India’s higher educational challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(4), 503–510.
Aminoff, R. (2011). The current themes of Indian higher education. University of Turku.
Blanco Ramírez, G. (2013). Studying quality beyond technical rationality: Political and symbolic perspectives. Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 126–141.
Carnoy, M., & Dossani, R. (2013). Goals and governance of higher education in India. Higher Education, 65(5), 595–612.
Dyer, C., Choksi, A., Awasty, V., Iyer, U., Moyade, R., Nigam, N., & Purohit, N. (2002). Democratising teacher education research in India. Comparative Education, 38(3), 337–351.
Hudson, J., & Lowe, S. (2009). Understanding the policy process: Analysing welfare policy and practice (2nd ed.). Policy Press.
Khaparde, M. S. (2002). Educational research in India: Policy and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1(1–2), 23–33.
Khelifi, S. (2019). Interplay between politics and institution in higher education reform. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.12973/eujer.8.3.671.
Khelifi, S., & Triki, M. (2020). Use of discretion on the front line of higher education policy reform: The case of quality assurance reforms in Tunisia. Higher Education, 80(3), 531–548.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational & social science research: The logic of methods (3rd ed.). Longman.
Lipsky, M. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6(4), 391–409.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service, 30th anniversary. Russell Sage Foundation.
Ministry of Human Resource Development (2019). Draft national education policy 2019. Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 305–329). Sage.
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.
Singh, A. (2003). Academic standards in Indian universities: Ravages of affiliation. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(30), 3200–3208.
UGC [University Grants Commission] (2010). UGC annual report 2009/2010. University Grants Commission.
UGC (2014). UGC annual report 2013/2014. University Grants Commission.
UGC (2017). UGC annual report 2016/2017. University Grants Commission.
Witenstein, M. A. (2015). Educational value in urban colleges of education in India. Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University.
Witenstein, M. A. (2017). Teachers’ perspectives on higher education policies. Economic & Political Weekly, 52(39), 15.
Zedekia, S. (2017). Street level bureaucrats as the ultimate policy makers. Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 5(4), 306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Witenstein, M.A., Abdallah, J. Applying the street-level bureaucracy framework for education policy discernment to curriculum and exam policies in India. Prospects 52, 437–452 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09598-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09598-6

