Chapter 4: Phases

Preface

This chapter considers some of the practical issues related to the process of developing a teacher policy. It builds on Chapter 2, which discusses the framing of teacher policies in different contexts, and Chapter 3, which describes various dimensions of teacher policy. It should be read in conjunction with Chapter 5, which considers key aspects of implementing national teacher education policies.

Teacher policy is a key aspect of public policy. It serves as an instrument for the direct allocation of public resources and actions. Its goal is to enhance teacher quality, thus improving teaching and student learning. For the process of policy development to succeed, it must be well planned from the outset; there are strong linkages between policy development, planning for implementation, implementation, and resourcing. Usually planning units in MoEs play a key role in the process. For example, the MoE in Singapore has a Planning Division, whose mission is ‘to formulate and review education policies as well as manage and analyse key MoE data to support MoE management in decision-making’ (https://www.moe.gov.sg/ about/ org-structure/ pld).

The MoE/Department of Education (DoE) is a key actor in organizing the teacher policy development process. At the outset of such a process, the MoE should clarify the phases and stages of the process, identify the relevant bodies to be involved in the process, the timeframe, and the costs. An important consideration in developing any teacher policy is to ensure that there is a task force or group steering the process. Often, governments appoint a task force or committee of MoE personnel, together with experts including academics and representatives of partner organizations, such as teacher unions and donor agencies, to manage and lead the process. The committee’s tasks may include convening meetings, commissioning relevant research, overseeing consultations with stakeholders and generally organizing the policy process. Such a task force or group is ultimately accountable to the MoE.

It must be recognised that preparing a teacher policy is often a long, complex, and daunting task. There is no universal ‘one size fits all’ approach to policy development, as the process is highly context-specific. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) Teacher Policy (2013) notes that ‘Any policy has to be set in context’, recognising that its policy is part of ‘the multi-faceted UNRWA Education Reform of which the Teacher Policy is one key aspect’. The type of policy to be developed – whether it will take the form of a legislative act or programme, or set of regulations or regulatory guidelines (Chapter 5) – also dictates the approach to be taken in the policy development processes, as each country has its own rules and procedures to be followed.

4.1 Key phases

This section synthesizes numerous and contested models of policy development to provide a framework for the policy development process.^{Footnote 28} It presents the model below as an analytical tool to help policy-makers identify the key elements in formulating policy. However, it should be recognized that policy formulation and implementation is rarely a technical-rational exercise. Rather, it is an inherently political process. Policy-making as such is characterized by social conflict and struggles, as well as trade-offs between competing priorities and goals. It involves contestation between social forces and movements at all stages of the policy processes, from agenda-setting to formulation, adoption and implementation. This means that popular struggles can shape policy-making and policy outcomes, and can modify the teacher policy as contained in official texts.

Contestation about what constitutes policy, and therefore what should be included in any teacher policy, reflects different views of what is desirable and what is feasible. Rizvi and Lingard (2010) note that values are central to policy-making. A policy in the form of a text or document reflects particular values and is the ‘authoritative allocation of values’ (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). As a value-laden exercise, policy development is a normative process in which certain voices are privileged while others are more marginalized, reflecting power differentials in society. This section therefore begins with a discussion of stakeholder participation in general and teacher involvement in particular. Meaningful consultation and participation of all stakeholders, particularly those who are marginalized, is crucial to all aspects of the policy development process, particularly during the agenda-setting phase.

The above discussion suggests that developing a policy is not a simple and straightforward process. The policy life-cycle approach suggested below should therefore be understood as an analytical tool to assist ministries in formulating policies. This framework should be used as a flexible guide to developing a teacher policy and not as a rigid, prescriptive model to be followed in a narrow and linear fashion. It should be emphasized that the phases suggested are often iterative and overlapping, and are not sharply distinguishable as is often implied. Public policy-making as argued above is a complex, multi-layered, and iterative activity, with often multiple policy initiatives underway simultaneously (Badat, 2014).

4.1.1 Consultation — ongoing and meaningful throughout the policy process

Consultations with appropriate groups should be embedded throughout the teacher policy development process; however, consultation with various stakeholders and interest groups once the policy has been drafted is also important.

The groups that should be consulted include local government bodies (where they exist), other ministries beyond the MoE, national and international civil society organizations, international agencies, private education providers, teachers, parents and learners, and the organizations that represent them.

Ensuring wide participation and varied voices in the policy process ensures that the concerns and viewpoints of different actors are taken into consideration. It also increases the likelihood that the policy, once completed, will have the support of the public, stakeholders, the front- line staff expected to implement it and funders (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2013). The consultation process has crucial impacts on public and professional responses during the implementation phase of the policy and, consequently, impacts on its outcomes (Adams, 2001; ILO/UNESCO, 2003; Ratteree, 2004; VSO, 2002a; VSO, 2002b; VSO, 2002c).

The complex power and political contexts in which invitation to and participation in consultation take place within and among institutions should be considered when coordinating participation (Lewis and Naidoo, 2004). Coordination should ensure that everyone involved has a voice and is respected, regardless of their power or influence in or outside of the policy process (ILO/UNESCO, 2003; ILO/UNESCO, 2008; VSO, 2002a; VSO, 2002b; VSO, 2002c). As many have argued, this inclusive process should include not only teachers, but also students (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004; Morgan, 2011; Pedder and McIntyre, 2006; Ratteree, 2004; Thompson, 2009).

The selection of policy options to realize policy objectives is rarely clear-cut, as different strategies may address the same problem. The consultation process can become intense and contested, requiring negotiation among interest groups. Thus, the consultation process is crucial to making policy choices, particularly when alternative strategies and interventions have been suggested to address the identified problems and issues.

Social dialogue and consultation take different forms in different countries. In Nigeria, consultation included a survey of public opinion in selected states (Box 4.1).

As noted in Chapter 2, the involvement of teacher unions in education reform is not only a right, but is also essential to successful implementation. Teacher involvement in education and in the development of a teacher policy is more than simple consultation; it should substantively engage teachers in identifying and enacting in practice (implementation phase) the changes necessary to enhance education quality, recognizing teachers as professionals. In this respect, teacher unions play a crucial role in influencing and taking ownership of policies. A review of the involvement of teacher unions in education in Latin America (Gindin and Finger, 2013) features several examples of how teacher unions contribute to enhancing quality and equity. The authors highlight the case of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), where the teacher union, the Confederation of Rural Education Teachers Bolivia, played a key role in advocating for instruction in indigenous languages for indigenous groups (Gindin and Finger 2013: 17–20). They note how the union has been an important advocate for indigenous education rights in Bolivia, ensuring that such rights are constitutionally enshrined.

4.1.2 Phase 1: Issue identification and agenda-setting

The starting point in any teacher policy development process is agenda-setting, which involves identifying, agreeing on and clarifying the issues or problems requiring further government attention.

The teacher policy agenda may emanate from other sources besides government, such as public opinion, international agencies and teacher unions. Whatever the source, government plays a crucial role in taking up and acting on the agenda. The processes of agenda-setting and developing a teacher policy reflect power relationships – particularly in relation to such questions as ‘who can speak, when and with what authority’ (Ball, 1990: 17). Various actors and stakeholders have different power positions in society and bring these to the policy process. It is therefore important to pay attention to the manner in which – and by whom – the policy problem is identified and framed as it develops; power dynamics impact on the entire teacher policy development process, from the manner in which the proposed agenda evolves and is acted on, to which aspects eventually become policies.

Section 4.2 reviews the roles and responsibilities of relevant bodies in designing, drafting and validating a national teacher policy.

4.1.3 Phase 2: Policy formulation – analysis, principles and options/choices

Once the problems requiring policy attention have been identified and the teacher policy agenda has been agreed, the next phase is to develop the policy options and ideas for subsequent consultation. This stage requires gathering information and research to identify feasible and implementable policy options that could address the agreed agenda.

Needs/situational analysis/diagnosis

As mentioned in Phase 1 above, policy options are developed to fit particular social, political, economic and cultural contexts. They therefore require a needs analysis to examine the situation systematically, recommend the issues for immediate attention and determine ways of addressing them. Policy options should be costed, and consideration should be given to which policy instruments – legislation, programmes, or regulations – are most appropriate.

An important activity during this phase is a comprehensive situation analysis on teachers in the particular country, including those aspects impacting on teacher effectiveness, attrition and shortage. In post-conflict and post-disaster contexts, particular attention should be paid to key aspects such as teacher supply and deployment, as well as teachers’ role as agents of peace-building, reconciliation and disaster preparedness. Research is a key component of such a situation analysis, to identify the facts and those measures that are considered successful. Chapter 3 provides a synthesis and evidence of some of the main aspects.

Policy work in this phase should enable policy-makers to make informed decisions about the policy changes required to address the identified problem. It is likely that in the course of developing policy options, previously identified problems may change and new problems will be identified.

Agreeing on principles during policy formulation

A clear set of principles and factors should guide the teacher policy development process, at the heart of which should be a commitment to quality teaching and learning (see Box 4.2 for the example of UNRWA). Such a set of principles and factors should include:

• Equity: will the policy result in greater equity in education? Do the options and choices consider the needs of marginalized and disadvantaged groups? How do the policy options and choices address disabilities?
• Comprehensive and holistic: is the policy comprehensive? Does it address holistically the interrelated aspects of teacher quality, status and conditions, and teacher education? Is it integrated and linked to existing social and other education policies?
• Financial sustainability: are the policy choices and options affordable and financially sustainable?
• Feasibility: are the policy options and choices feasible and easy to implement? Are they manageable from an administrative standpoint? Is there adequate capacity to implement?

Drafting policy options and choices – paying attention to costing and implementation

The drafting of policy options and choices should be consistent with the analysis of the situation in the country and the principles agreed upon. This is often the task of a dedicated group of people, who may comprise a Task Force or Commission established by the government or may be MoE officials. In some cases, the task force or MoE may choose to contract out the work to experts involved in the policy process. This is the phase where teacher education experts are sometimes brought in. A well-crafted teacher policy should clearly outline the vision, the issue to be addressed, the possible policy options and solution to the problems. Crucially, it should also include the costs and benefits of each policy option, as well as the conditions and implementation issues to be addressed for the policy to be successful.

Following consultations, a final policy document, setting out the agreed policy choices, should be issued.

4.1.4 Phase 3: Adoption/decision

The appropriate government official or body, such as the president, congress, minister, state legislators, agency officials or court, makes a decision about the final policy. Deliberations of such parties and bodies may, at times, result in the policy being altered or modified and, in exceptional cases, rejected in its entirety. However, the previously recommended consultation phase should help to mitigate this.

The process of policy approval and adoption depends on the country context. In many countries – where the final policy is regarded as a major plank in the government’s platform – a final draft is compiled for the parliament’s endorsement and approval. In other cases, the policy becomes a document of the MoE, requiring endorsement by the Minister of Education. Any policy that is endorsed may require governmental actions, including budgetary appropriation, changes in existing rules and new regulations. Laws-making differs in each country. In South Africa, for example, all major education policies are issued initially in draft form as white papers (and in some cases as green papers), after which they follow the parliamentary process of Bills, Readings and finally Act. Box 4.3 explains the general process of making a law in South Africa, which also applies to the adoption of a teacher policy.

The process of making law is subject to contestation and conflict, and often involves legal challenges. In federal states, for example, provinces, regions or states may challenge central government if they are held responsible for financing the implementation of the law. Box 4.4 describes the contestation over the Right to Free Education Act in India.

4.1.5 Phase 4: implementation – communication and dissemination

Chapter 5  of this Guide deals more extensively with implementation of approved policy.

This section discusses the issue of communication and dissemination.

Because of its level of ‘concreteness’, the implementation process highlights the existing structural capacities, as well as stakeholders’ actual ability to yield the desired change. In some cases, this may require rethinking and adjusting aspects of the policy.

Effective implementation of the policy should be promoted through well-designed information campaigns targeted at all stakeholders, as well as other interested groups (Box 4.5 provides an example from UNRWA). Promoting the policy increases the probability of successful implementation, as it builds public support and endorsement, which are crucial to achieving the desired goals. Media exposure can help ensure that the public understands and supports the policy process.

4.1.6 Phase 5: Monitoring and evaluation

The policy development process should include a clear plan for monitoring and evaluation, to help determine whether the implemented policy is achieving the intended objectives. Timely provision of sound information can improve a policy’s relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. Efforts to improve the use of information focus on making it more usable by policy-makers, particularly in the wake of calls for more ‘country-led monitoring and evaluation systems’ (UNICEF, 2009). Monitoring and evaluation should measure the policy’s effectiveness in addressing the problems originally identified, and determine whether the policy is bringing about the desired changes. The problems identified during monitoring and evaluation may require changes in policy design. However, the monitoring and evaluation process should not simply be summative and conducted at the end of the process. It should also include formative and continuous monitoring to adjust the policy as it is being implemented (see Chapter 5  for a more detailed discussion). The main aim of robust monitoring and evaluation of a teacher policy should be to enhance and improve the policy; as such, it should be framed within a continuous improvement approach.

4.2 Roles and responsibilities

A clear delineation of the roles of the different players involved in the process is vital to an effective policy development process (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2013), and ensures that the views of different stakeholders are reflected and incorporated into a final policy text. Thus, a crucial step in any teacher policy process is to identify relevant institutions and organizations, including MoEs, ministries of finance, schools, organizations representing teachers and students, parents’ associations, and international agencies (OECD, 2005). Different stakeholders play different roles at different stages of the policy process. For example, adoption/decision-making is usually the prerogative of parliaments or equivalent legislature in contexts where a teacher policy passes through a legislative process. Table 4.1 lists some of the main stakeholders and indicates their potential roles and positive involvement in the policy cycle. As noted earlier, all relevant bodies should crucially be involved in all stages of the policy development process to ensure effective policy development.

The above table suggests some of the main stakeholders and relevant bodies that should be involved in the policy formulation process. The particular list for a given case is best determined at the country level, taking into account the specific socio-political and socio-economic context. Effective involvement of relevant bodies and stakeholders is contingent upon meaningful participation and capacity. In principle, stakeholders should have a say (as noted above) in all aspects of policy development, although not at the adoption stage (even though stakeholders may influence the process, for example by lobbying parliamentary representatives), which is mainly the prerogative of elected parliamentary representatives. Teachers, through their representative structures (such as unions) are a key constituency that should be involved in any teacher policy development process.

Participation requires creating spaces and mechanisms that facilitate social dialogue between government authorities and stakeholders, particularly as it regards teachers. In a democracy, the different stages of policy-making may be relatively public, open, and accessible to citizens, and the law may facilitate the participation of social actors in policy-making. Badat (2014) notes that such participation may take different forms, including formal and informal requests by those developing the policy for advice, consultations with statutory bodies such as teacher service commissions, and submissions and advocacy by stakeholders at public hearings and other events. As noted above, it is important to recognize that stakeholders possess very different and often unequal policy resources, including expertise and finances to engage in policy development.

Meaningful involvement and relationship-building require a culture of transparency and openness: stakeholders and relevant bodies involved in policy development should therefore be committed to the highest level of honest and open communication, and be willing to listen and to share information.

Information is crucial to participation, and governments should be committed to making information widely available. Open government and unrestricted access to information – to which many countries have committed – ensure that stakeholders and relevant bodies involved in teacher policy development are able to make informed choices and decisions.

Box 4.6 lists some questions that may help define the roles of relevant bodies and organize policy consultation.

4.3 Costing

The financial aspects of a teacher policy must be examined in the early stages of its development. Failure to effectively link policy-making and national budgetary processes is one of the main contributors to ineffective policy implementation. For instance, neglecting to consider the funding aspect of a policy could result in ‘unfunded mandates’.

To strengthen linkages between policy, planning and budgeting, many countries rely on a multi-year budgeting process, which often takes the form of a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) (Box 4.7).

Sector MTEFs are integrated into national multi-year fiscal frameworks, ensuring that resources are allocated for policy priorities within the national budget and within a reasonably long-term framework. This can be significant, particularly in developing countries, where most of the resources are often committed to existing programmes, and financing new policy implementation is difficult.

Financing a new policy depends on the priority given to the problem, the costs and the availability of resources to implement the policy. New policies’ priority within the long- and medium-term education sector plans must be clearly defined. Moreover, the new policy needs to be carefully and realistically budgeted.^{Footnote 29} MoEs may need to strengthen their technical capacity for financial policy modelling, costing and gathering of financial data (Clarke, 2010). When considering the costs of the policy process, costing of the implementation phase of the process should be included (UNESCO, 2007).

Well-considered financial planning of policies can contribute to the development of sustainable and effective teacher policies. Different countries have adopted different strategies in costing teacher policies: in Kenya, for example, costing involved an analysis of existing resources and sources of potential additional funding for the policy process (Box 4.8).

In South Africa, costing also involved considering the legal responsibilities of the institutions involved in funding education policies (Box 4.9).

Potential barriers to taking such an approach – such as lack of transparency about available resources – must be considered. Thus, costing the policy process includes identifying all elements and the main objectives of the policy involved. All the objectives, and the actions needed to achieve them, are costed individually.

4.4 Conditions for successful teacher policy development

This section lists some important issues to be considered when formulating a teacher policy that is more likely to be effectively implemented. A successful teacher policy is clear and specific in its choices to address key challenges.

4.4.1 Consistency between new policy and existing policies and structures

Teacher policy development should not occur in isolation from other policies in general, and education policies in particular. Moreover, any teacher policy process should build on existing policy. When introducing a new teacher policy, a thorough analysis should be undertaken to investigate how the new policy may impact on existing policies and what changes, if any, need to be made to the existing policy. Coherence and collaboration should be ensured among different sections/departments of MoEs, as well as with other ministries. In some instances, this may require creating new structures and bodies, such as teacher service commissions, which oversee various aspects of teacher governance, including recruitment and deployment. Where such structures exist, their roles may be redefined in light of a teacher policy – for example, if a teacher policy advocates for decentralising teacher deployment to either the provincial/regional or school level.

4.4.2 Comprehensive strategic planning

Integrated strategic planning is crucial to effective policy development. A teacher policy needs to be an integral part both of other education policies and of governments’ overall strategic plans.

In South Africa, the 2009 Teacher Development Summit called for the development and subsequent implementation of an integrated plan for teacher education and development. The government commissioned working groups and issued an Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa, which guides numerous actions for 2011–2015, based on the comprehensive review of the sector and aligned to its twenty-five-year education plan. Even given these coordinated efforts, inconsistencies still exist between these education plans and the National Development Plan, reinforcing the need for an integrated planning process (DBE and DHET, 2011).

4.4.3 Engaging teachers

Teachers are the main stakeholders in teacher policies; their understanding, acceptance and support of a teacher policy is vital to its successful implementation. The concept is enshrined in the 1966 Recommendation, which considers the inclusion of teachers and teachers’ organisations in a wide range of educational policy development – as well as employers, workers, parents and other stakeholders – a cornerstone of education policy development (ILO/ UNESCO, 1966: Articles 9, 10k). Active teacher involvement in policy development and implementation, and teachers’ sense of ‘ownership’, underlie the success of any reform (ILO/UNESCO, 2003; OECD, 2005; Yelland and Pont, 2014: 35).

As noted above, social dialogue with teachers can take different forms at different phases of the policy formulation and implementation stages.

• Information sharing can employ a wide array of communication channels among education authorities and teachers, from high-level policy meetings with teachers’ organizations on the whole range of a teacher policy to workplace (school and classroom) discussions on implementation, involving oral or written communications in varying degrees of formality.
• Consultation, in which authorities actively and respectfully listen to the views of teachers without any commitment to act on these views, may be formal or informal, but should be at least meaningful. In other words, the consultation process should be genuinely open to the possibility of changing policies based on proposals from both authorities/employers and teachers/unions engaged in the consultation process. Consultation subjects may include initial teacher education and professional development programmes; curricula; teacher assessment; codes of professional conduct or ethics; school organization and innovations in learning as part of education reforms: and school infrastructure adapted to the specifics of learning needs in a country or system. Many OECD countries successfully rely on consultation forms and institutions related to these matters to develop their education and teacher policy reforms (Asia Society, 2014; ILO, 2012: 206–207; ILO/UNESCO, 1966; Yelland and Pont, 2014: 36).
• Participation, which involves granting teachers a role in decision-making through a school- or system-based council or committee structure without necessarily implying a negotiated agreement, is a compromise between consultation and negotiation. Teaching councils in many countries, or other professional standard-setting bodies such as those that exist in the United States and South Africa, are examples of engaging teachers in participatory forms of policy development (ILO, 2012: 207-208; MacBeath, 2012; 109 – see also Chapter 3 on standards).
• Negotiation is a social dialogue that often takes the form of collective bargaining on the terms and conditions of employment – including salaries and performance assessment, hours of work and related workplace conditions – that have implications for other teaching and learning policies, such as teacher hiring and PTRs/class sizes. Negotiation is more likely to apply to the translation of a policy into action than to its elaboration (ILO, 2012: 203, 205, 206).

To be effective, social dialogue requires some conditions (ILO, 2012: 205–206):

• Strong, independent, representative and democratic teachers’ organisations and, where organized, education employers’organisations, whether public or private
• Political will, trust and commitment of all parties to engage in these processes, including both educational authorities who develop a policy and teachers’ organisations that are not always accustomed to, or do not always have the capacity to engage in, policy development and application
• Respect for the fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining as a basis for institutionalised social dialogue
• Social dialogue institutions, since informal or ad hoc forms of social dialogue are unlikely to have a lasting impact. A statutory framework based on social conduct laws in their various forms is vital for consultative bodies with defined responsibilities and structures (for representation on issues such as teacher education programmes, professional standards and curricula for better learning outcomes) or for collective bargaining on employment terms and conditions (such as salaries and working hours, whether at the national, local or school level).

Various forms of social dialogue used to engage teachers in the policy process may feature considerable overlap between policy development and implementation (see also Chapter 5). It is therefore important to plan for these implications in the development process, for example by adopting a policy on teacher salaries that anticipates the negotiation process – which may in turn determine whether, and how, the policy will be implemented. While a true consultation may be difficult and time-consuming, token consultation and a rushed process places successful policy implementation at risk.

4.4.4 Evidence-informed policy (EIP) development

EIP has been promoted in the last few decades in the field of development studies. Policy development should consider the available evidence to design teacher policies resulting in better outcomes. EIP is particularly important in developing countries (Sutcliffe and Court, 2005). Facilitating EIP may require developing the country’s research capacity and fostering the systematic integration of research and policy. Likewise, to facilitate greater use of evidence by policy-makers, academic researchers need to strengthen their understanding of the policy research nexus and of how to communicate relevant policy evidence to policy-makers (Segone, 2008).

Evidence-informed policy development requires managing and collecting data for use in teacher policy development (and implementation – see Chapter 5). An effective TMIS may help manage the data, either as a stand-alone database or component of a larger EMIS. A TMIS may feature data relating to all aspects of the teaching force important to a teacher policy. Certain conditions determine the usefulness of a TMIS (or EMIS) for effective policy, including: reliability, consistency and timeliness of data across education levels and administrative boundaries (national and decentralized); funding, maintenance and technical support capacity over time; user and core professional engagement (notably teachers and principals/head teacher) in planning, testing, piloting, rolling out and feedback; and user friendliness, training and capacity (ILO, 2012: 13–14).

4.4.5 Country ownership

Ownership of the policy process by developing countries is among the foundational principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which hold that:

• Partner countries commit to exercise leadership in developing and implementing their national development strategies through broad consultative processes
• Donors commit to respecting partner countries’ leadership, and help strengthen their capacity to exercise it (OECD, 2005/2008: 3).

Clarity about roles is therefore essential – particularly with regard to ownership, when international agencies are involved in policy development.

The Paris Declaration clearly indicates that the policy development process must be a country-led process. National governments are accountable for preparing their development-oriented policies and strategies through broad consultation. When international consultants or donors provide technical assistance for policy-making, national governments must ensure that the process is designed to develop national capacities.

The Accra Agenda for Action in 2008 notes that while recipient countries will ‘strengthen the quality of policy design’, donors should commit to ‘capacity building of the development actors – parliaments, central and local governments, CSOs, research institutes, media and the private sector’, so that they are empowered to play an active role in the policy development process (OECD, 2005/2008: 16).

4.4.6 Capacity of MoEs

A precondition for developing sound teacher policies is that the MoE/DoE must have the necessary human resources, with adequate technical expertise. An assessment of training needs should be carried out to ensure that civil servants and officials are able to effectively manage the public policy-making process. Box 4.10 indicates some sections in MoEs with important roles in policy-making; Table 4.2 features a checklist for assessing capacity.

4.5 Timeframe and roadmap

As stated earlier in this chapter, the MoE/DoE is a key actor in organising the teacher policy development process. The Ministry should, at the outset of a teacher development process, clarify the phases and stages of the process, identify the relevant bodies to be involved, the timeframe and the costs.

Developing and implementing policies (Chapter 5) is a costly, time-consuming and complex enterprise, both technically and politically. Providing a suitable timeframe is thus crucial to ensuring support from teachers and other stakeholders. A roadmap can be helpful in outlining how the goals of the policy will be implemented and realised. For instance, South Africa’s Integrated Strategic Framework for Teacher Education was planned for overall implementation between 2011 and 2025. Each individual objective within this policy has its own specified schedule for implementation including timeframe, resources, and targets.

Clearly identifying priorities within the policy can help determine the timeframes and order in which activities to advance policy objectives will be initiated. Success of some policy objectives may depend on other policy objectives being achieved. Therefore, timeframes of some activities or policy objectives may act as foundations for other activities. The relationships between the different facets of the policy goal should thus be well analysed and understood (Haddad, 1995; WHO, 2001; ILO, 2012).

The checklist in Table 4.3 suggests some key questions to address in developing a timeframe for the policy roadmap.

We conclude this chapter by providing a detailed case study of the development of South Africa’s teacher policy (Box 4.11). South Africa presents an interesting example of the policy development process and progress made to date. It is similar in many ways to the policy cycle and planning framework – including its overlapping and non-sequential aspects – discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 5 focuses on plans and organizational capacity for implementing an agreed national teacher policy.

You can now take the Chapter 4 quiz  to try to earn your badge for this chapter

Now go to Chapter 5 Implementation.

References