When it comes to educational policy, I always believed there was a systematic and structured step-by-step process that resulted in the creation and enactment of educational policy. I thought that the breakdown in communication happened in the way policy was explained to others and enacted.
I was wrong. There is no step-by-step process when it comes to policy making. Policy making is not a rational process with a clear beginning, middle, and end (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). Actions are the result of problems and policy ideas being matched together with consideration to the political interests of those working on the policy, which Lindblom & Woodhouse (1993) refer to as a “primeval soup.” Other times, policy is the result of compromises of those involved in the process and not from a problem at all (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993).
Political success is contingent on keeping inconvenient issues off the agenda as well as winning disputes that arise (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). Policy could be the unintended result of another political action or may occur gradually based on changes in law enforcement (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). Often, the solution to a problem results in other problems causing implementation and agenda building to occur simultaneously. Policy evaluation also can determine the necessary next steps in the policy making process. “Elections, elected functionaries, bureaucrats, and interest groups” all influence the policy making process (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). “Business influence, inequality, and impaired capacities for probing social problems” often distort the policy making process (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). In order to make the policy making process more intelligent and democratic, structural conditions would need to be modified and distorting effects would need to be reduced (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993).
Lindblom, C. E. & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.