Applying the Street-Level Bureaucracy Framework for Education Policy Discernment to Curriculum and Exam Policies in India
Prospects, Vol: 52
2022
- 6Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage6
- Abstract Views6
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know