Gerald Ajam

Library / Glossary / The context glossary

Education policy glossary

34 terms from C17, Education policy: making it and enacting it — each defined in the primer's own words. Every term the primer teaches links to the slide that teaches it.

The whole context glossary

C17 · Schools and systems

Education policy: making it and enacting it

“Policy is announced, then implemented.”

Every term below is defined in the words of education policy, primer C17 of understanding the context of education, and opens the primer at the slide where it is taught. 1 term is also defined by another primer in the series; where the two differ, both wordings are given. The whole context glossary holds all of them together.

TermDefinitionReferred to inRead further
A
Agenda setting

The stage at which a condition becomes a problem that government will consider acting on. Kingdon (1995) treats it as the coupling of a named problem, an available solution and a favourable politics.

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). HarperCollins.
  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. doi
Ambiguity–conflict model

Matland's model in which how clear a policy is, and how much people disagree about it, predict what decides a rollout: resources, power, local context or the strength of local coalitions (Matland, 1995).

  • Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. doi
B
Backward mapping

A planning method that specifies the behaviour wanted at the last point of contact, then asks what each level above it would have to do to make that behaviour possible (Elmore, 1979).

  • Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616. doi
C
Campbell's law

The more a quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it is to corruption pressures and the more apt to distort the social processes it is intended to monitor (Campbell, 1979).

C01 When test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways (Campbell, 1979).

C14 The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort the processes it monitors (Campbell, 1979).

  • Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. doi
  • Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. doi
Capacity-building

A policy instrument defined as "the transfer of money for the purpose of investment in material, intellectual, or human resources" (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987b). It assumes the skill or kit is missing and pays for it, accepting a long wait for returns.

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987a). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi
  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. doi
E
Enlightenment model

The account in which research enters policy not as an answer to a question but as a slow accumulation of concepts, generalisations and framings that change how a problem is understood (Weiss, 1986).

  • Weiss, C. H. (1986). The circuitry of enlightenment. Knowledge, 8(2), 274–281. doi
  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. doi
Evidence-informed policy

Policy made with explicit reference to research, while acknowledging that research cannot settle questions of value, priority or timing. Usually preferred to "evidence-based" because it claims less and describes practice better (Cairney & Oliver, 2017).

  • Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 35. doi
  • Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Macmillan. doi
  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. doi
F
Fidelity against adaptation

The question of whether a programme should be delivered as designed or changed to fit its setting. Primer C11 covers it for curriculum and C23 for reform; the working answer in both is to state which parts are tight before allowing the rest to be loose (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Thompson & Wiliam, 2007).

  • Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335–397. doi
  • Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2007, April 9–13). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, United States. dylanwiliam.org
  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339–351. doi
H
Hortatory tools

Policy tools that work by persuasion, exhortation, published values or symbolic action rather than by rules, money or authority. Schneider and Ingram (1990) treat them as one family of tools with their own behavioural assumptions. They are the cheapest instrument and usually the weakest.

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. doi
I
Implementation

The stage at which a decided policy is carried out. Implementation research treats it as the main source of variation in what a policy achieves, rather than as an administrative afterthought (McLaughlin, 1987; Honig, 2006).

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. archive.org
  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi
  • Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. State University of New York Press. doi
Implementation gap

The distance between what a policy states and what is actually delivered. Naming it is useful; treating it as pure failure is not, because some of the distance is the legitimate adaptation a policy needs to work anywhere in particular.

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi
  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. archive.org
Inducements

A policy instrument defined as "the transfer of money to individuals or agencies in return for certain actions" (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987b). It assumes the capacity to act already exists and the effort or attention is missing.

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987a). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi
  • Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77. nber.org
M
Mandates

A policy instrument defined as "rules governing the action of individuals and agencies, intended to produce compliance" (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987b). It assumes everyone could comply if required, regardless of their differing capacities.

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987a). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi
  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi
Multiple streams

Kingdon's account of agenda setting as three largely independent streams (problems, policies and politics) which a policy entrepreneur joins while a window is open; a widely used framework, not a tested theory (Kingdon, 1995).

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). HarperCollins.
  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. doi
Mutual adaptation

McLaughlin's (1976) finding that a project and its setting each change the other during implementation, and that the versions which survive are the adapted ones.

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339–351. doi
  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi
P
Path dependence

The property of a process in which early choices generate increasing returns that make later reversal expensive, so the range of live options narrows over time (Pierson, 2000). It explains both the strength of long policy lines and the difficulty of turning them.

  • Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. doi
  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press. doi
Pilots

Small first implementations used to find practical problems, build local expertise and refine a design before a wider rollout. A pilot in volunteer or well-prepared sites tests feasibility rather than predicting what a full rollout will produce. Primer C22 covers what an evaluation can establish.

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2019, September 3). One secondary education, many subject bands: 28 secondary schools to pilot Full Subject-Based Banding [Press release]. moe.gov.sg
  • Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. doi
Policy actors

The positions staff take up towards a policy inside one school: narrators, entrepreneurs, translators, transactors, enthusiasts, critics, receivers and outsiders. They are a vocabulary for looking, not a validated typology (Ball et al., 2011).

  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. doi
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. doi
Policy coherence

The degree to which the instruments, messages and accountability demands reaching a school point in the same direction. Incoherence is usually experienced at the front line as overload rather than as contradiction, because contradictory demands still have to be met.

  • Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. State University of New York Press. doi
  • Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. doi
Policy cycle

The heuristic that divides policy into agenda setting, formulation, decision, implementation and evaluation (Jann & Wegrich, 2007). Useful for teaching that policy is a process; misleading if read as a description, because the stages overlap and implementation is much larger than one box.

  • Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.
  • Cairney, P. (n.d.). Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM). Retrieved September 18, 2026, from paulcairney.wordpress.com
Policy enactment

Ball, Maguire and Braun's (2012) term for what schools do with policy: interpret it, translate it and put it to work in a particular place with particular people, rather than simply receive and implement it.

  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. doi
  • Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596. doi
  • Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2015). “Where you stand depends on where you sit”: The social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 485–499. discovery.ucl.ac.uk
Policy evaluation

The stage at which a policy's effects are examined, and the point at which the cycle is supposed to feed the next agenda. In practice, evaluation often arrives after the next decision has been taken.

  • Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.
  • Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. doi
Policy formulation

The stage at which options are developed and an instrument is chosen. This is where most of the consequential design happens, and where the choice of instrument is often made by habit rather than analysis.

  • Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
Policy instruments

The means by which government brings its resources to bear: rules, money for action now, money for capacity later, or authority moved to different hands (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987a). Each instrument embeds a different assumption about why the desired behaviour is absent.

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987a). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. doi
Policy translation

The work of turning a policy text into the events, routines, templates and materials that carry it in a school. Distinct from interpretation, which decides what the policy means here (Ball et al., 2012).

  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. doi
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. doi
Policy windows

Short openings in which a problem, a solution and a favourable politics can be coupled, so that an item reaches the agenda. Windows close, which is why a solution has to be ready before one opens (Kingdon, 1995).

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). HarperCollins.
  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. doi
Pressure and support

McLaughlin's formulation that effective implementation needs a strategic balance of the two: pressure alone produces the appearance of change, and support alone produces drift (McLaughlin, 1987).

  • McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi
S
Sensemaking

The process by which the people implementing a policy come to understand it, using what they already know and believe. Spillane, Reiser and Reimer (2002) argue that much apparent non-implementation is people faithfully enacting the version of a policy they understood.

  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi
  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Stakeholder engagement

Consultation with the people a policy affects, before and during its design. Done well it improves the instrument and builds the translators a rollout needs; done as a formality it produces consent without information.

  • Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616. doi
Street-level bureaucracy

Lipsky's (1980) term for public services delivered by front-line staff — teachers, police officers, social workers — who must apply general rules to particular people with fewer resources than the demand, and whose routines and rationing become the operating policy.

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197. doi
System-changing

A policy instrument defined as "the transfer of official authority among individuals and agencies to alter the system by which public goods and services are delivered" (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987b). It assumes existing institutions cannot produce the result under existing incentives.

  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987b). Alternative policy instruments (Joint Note Series JNE-03). Center for Policy Research in Education. files.eric.ed.gov
  • McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987a). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. doi
T
Tight–loose

A design rule that holds a few central principles fixed while allowing local accommodation elsewhere, but only where that accommodation does not conflict with the intervention's theory of action (Thompson & Wiliam, 2007).

  • Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2007, April 9–13). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, United States. dylanwiliam.org
Top-down and bottom-up implementation

Two traditions in implementation research: one beginning from the statute and tracing compliance downwards, the other beginning from the point of contact and working upwards (Sabatier, 1986). Elmore's (1979) backward mapping is the practical form of the second.

  • 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. doi
  • Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616. doi
  • Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. doi
U
Unintended consequences

Effects a policy produces that nobody designed, especially where a number carries consequences. Campbell's (1979) law is the general statement; primer C14 covers what it does to assessment systems in detail.

  • Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. doi
  • Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904. doi
Singapore