Definition: In this analysis agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. By contrast, structure is those factors of influence (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, ability, customs, etc.) that determine or limit an agent and their decisions
Policy implementation, as field of study, has placed various importance on top-down policy directives from policymakers and politicians (Barret, 2004; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1980) as compared to street-level bureaucrats making decisions to implement a policy agenda (Lipsky 1980, Prottas 1979).
Structure-agent implementation theory merges these two approaches and analyzes the interaction of top-down policy structures and the ways in which individuals work within the larger system as they seek to implement policy (Coburn 2016). In this research, the agents are the district administrators using available policies, funding opportunities and mandates to adequately staff their programs. The structure is the scaffolding built by policy makers to help implement their statewide goals.
Through our data analysis and interview coding, we analyzed how statewide policy conditions influence the behavior of agents (teachers and administrators), and how the condition of agents in turn leads or does not lead to effective dual language implementation based on the discretion used by individuals in the overall policy system agents.
Building upon the structure-agent approach outlined above, we found specific and tangible distinctions in the way that administrators were seeking to provide dual-language education through workforce strategies. We conceptualized these strategies as originating either:
For example, using traditional hiring pathways to build a dual language workforce is a strategy used by individual administrators that does not rely on statewide bilingual policy.
By comparison, utilizing “Grow your Own” dual language policy as directed by PESB is a strategy that aligns with overall statewide dual language policy goals. The interview data also indicated specific strategies that are dependent on individual administrators utilizing individual agency in the implementation of dual language workforce strategy. An example of a high-agency strategy from the interview data is the use of conditional certifications.
This allows individual administrators to work outside of traditional workforce pipelines to fill roles based on need and discretion. By combining reliance on statewide dual language workforce policy and reliance on the agency of individual actors originating from our case studies, we proposed a conceptual map of policy implementation that represents not normative judgements on strategy effectiveness, but explanatory indicators of implementation inputs and necessary conditions of implementation effects as illustrated by interview data.
We defined target policy structures as those specific to the policy goal—in this case, to provide dual language education to all Washington students within the next decade. This is not to say that low convergence with target policy structures implies a lack of policy.
On the contrary, many of the strategies we conceptualized as a “status quo” approach are reliant on traditional human resource policy or workforce pipelines that exist for the broader teacher workforce population. Likewise, low agency utilization does not imply an abdication of responsibility on the part of individual actors. In some cases, low agency bilingual administrators may be more effective than high agency actors who step outside of accepted norms and pipelines that are intentionally in place to prevent negative outcomes or externalities, such as hiring unqualified or ill-equipped educators on a whim.
Notably, our interviews found that convergence with target policy structures does not necessarily imply reliance on target policy structures. In many cases, bilingual education administrators found statewide top-down policy to be value-oriented, rather than resource oriented. By aligning with statewide policy structures, administrators noted that they found it to be important for normative reasons, rather than purely for resources.
In addition, the statewide policy structures with high target policy convergence, such as Grow Your Own, tended to provide resources outside the direct delivery of bilingual education through teacher training, educational grants, and professional standards.
Our interviews with bilingual education administrators also revealed common themes around which strategies fit within certain quadrants of the conceptual map above.
