| dc.description.abstract | This mini-thesis traces the evolution of the South African education policy of decentralization from 1990 to 1996. The tracer study is guided by Bowe, Ball with Gold (1992)'s conceptualization of the policy process and the conceptual distinction of the policy process into the context of policy influence, the context of policy text production and the context of policy practice. In terms of the context of policy influence, I analyze how the political, social and economic forces have influenced the emergence and evolution of the education policy of decentralization in South Africa. I also analyze how forces within the context of education policy influence have shaped the representation of the discourses of decentralization, equity and redress. It becomes apparent from my analysis that the federal ideology permeating the interim constitution and the international pressures influenced the key policy actors, the democratic movement and the National Party
to adopt the notion of decentralization, albeit for different rationales. While the democratic movement adopted the policy of decentralization in order to advance the objective of participatory democracy and populist localism, the NP intended to advance neo-liberal tendencies like individual liberties, competition and meritocracy. As regards the context of education policy text production, I analyze the effect of the role played by civil society, the Ministry of Education and parliament in the development and textual representation of the discourse of decentralization. Guided by Lauglo (1990)'s conceptual distinction of decentralization into delegation, deconcentration and devolution, I establish that the key policy actors similarly represented decentralization as devolution, or "the transfer or authority by law from the state and to some regional or local (or private) authority which is not directly accountable to the center"(Lauglo, 1990:30). With regard to funding, I contend that the intervention of the international consultants served to introduce the market ideology in the provision of education. In conclusion, I contend that the education policy of decentralization, through its promotion of the notion of school ownership does not only dilute the central state's resolve to redress gross historical disparities in education but it inadvertently impedes the realization of the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome. I also argue that the ideology of the market promotes the perpetuation of historical inequalities in education. | en_US |
