Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Applying the street-level bureaucracy framework for education policy discernment to curriculum and exam policies in India

  • Cases/Trends
  • Published:
PROSPECTS Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, P. (2008). Indian higher education at the crossroads. International Higher Education, 51, 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, P. (2009). Indian higher education: Envisioning the future. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-third of the globe: The future of higher education in China and India. Prospects, 39(1), 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G. (2014). India’s higher educational challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(4), 503–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aminoff, R. (2011). The current themes of Indian higher education. University of Turku.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco Ramírez, G. (2013). Studying quality beyond technical rationality: Political and symbolic perspectives. Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., & Dossani, R. (2013). Goals and governance of higher education in India. Higher Education, 65(5), 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J., & Lowe, S. (2009). Understanding the policy process: Analysing welfare policy and practice (2nd ed.). Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khaparde, M. S. (2002). Educational research in India: Policy and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1(1–2), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational & social science research: The logic of methods (3rd ed.). Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6(4), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service, 30th anniversary. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Human Resource Development (2019). Draft national education policy 2019. Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. (2003). Academic standards in Indian universities: Ravages of affiliation. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(30), 3200–3208.

    Google Scholar 

  • UGC [University Grants Commission] (2010). UGC annual report 2009/2010. University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • UGC (2014). UGC annual report 2013/2014. University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • UGC (2017). UGC annual report 2016/2017. University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedekia, S. (2017). Street level bureaucrats as the ultimate policy makers. Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 5(4), 306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew A. Witenstein.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09598-6

Keywords

Navigation