Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of micro and macro approaches to the study of

education in Zimbabwe

INTRODUCTION
Curriculum implementation is one of the fundamental aspects of curriculum development.
Whilst it is viewed by many as a process transacted mainly by teachers as one of the key
implementers, this paper illustrates clearly that implementing a curriculum starts from the top
level, referred herein as macro implementation down to the classroom level, at the school
(micro implementation).Thus, the paper placates this complex and multi-dimensional process
by explaining the concept curriculum implementation and discusses clearly the nature of
macro and micro implementation as they apply to the Zimbabwean context. Suffice to say
that most curriculums suffer or die a natural dearth at the hands of implementers. The details
of the discourse are hereunder.
The concept of curriculum implementation
Fullan (1983:216) views implementation as a process of putting into practice an idea,
programme or set of activities which is new to the people in order to bring about a change.
On the other hand, Leethwood defines implementation as a process of behavioral change in
directions suggested by an innovation or new curriculum. Hence, implementation can be
viewed as a process of translating a policy or idea into practice or action. Taylor (2002)
conceptualizes implementation in terms of change of individual users (for example, teacher
and student) and growth of the organization as part of the system change is implemented.
Thus, Curriculum implementation refers to the actual use of a curriculum/syllabus or what
it consists of in practice (Gray, 1982; Marsh, 2009).
The Nature of Macro and Micro implementation
Implementation of a curriculum starts as a plan at macro level, which is at national or federal
level such as in America. Berman (1987:167) and Taylor (1988B:10) agree that there are four
key passages in macro- implementation processes namely administration, adoption, microimplementation and technical validity.
The Administration passage

Berman (1978:167-8) purports that, Administration is the translation of a policy decision

into a specific government programme whose presumed objective is to carry out the policys
intent. With reference to curriculum implementation, administration refers to ...the
translation of a policy into the form of a programme or curriculum (Taylor, 1988b:10).In
other words it means changing a policy to a school curriculum.
In Zimbabwe, the duty of translating educational policy into government programmes/school
curriculum is done by a national agency called Curriculum Development Unit (CDU) in the
case of primary and secondary education and Curriculum Research and Development unit
(CRADU) in the case of Higher and Tertiary Education. The CDU was mandated to
implement or translate the ten educational policies (see Appendix 1). It is the function of the
CDU to translate these (ten) government policies on Primary and Secondary education into
measurable objectives, programmes and activities. The ...measurable objectives, specific
programmes and activities are in the form of various school syllabi or curriculum
frameworks.
The challenge of translating policies into programmes
It is a common understanding that policies are written in legal language which may be
difficult to interpret. One major problem of policy is ambiguity of intention. As can be noted,
some of the ten policies are specific whilst others are ambiguous (refer to appendix 1). The
concepts of good quality and good citizenship are not generic but depend on ones views and
values, hence making them ambiguous. The fact that many people are involved by CDU in
translating policy to programmes assists in overcoming this ambiguity of intent since the
many participants will help each other to clarify the policies. Reviews made on draft syllabi
also help to correct ambiguity of policy intent. In this case, when a policy is interpreted
wrongly the draft curriculum (syllabus) is not adopted but is returned to planners for
correction with relevant suggestions.
The translation of policy into programmes may also be subject to co-optation. For one reason
or the other implementers may decide to ignore those policies that may cause them out of
trouble or the curriculum may be modified to conform in a pro forma fashion to the
traditional practices the curriculum or innovation was expected to replace (Jansen,
2013:224).

When the Zimbabwean government introduced policies on Education with Production,

Political Economy, AIDS Education and Zim-Science, the problem might have been that most
officers at CDU then ,were not in sympathy with or/and did not actually understand the
policies. This state of affairs could have led to a situation whereby such officers ignored the
policies. This state of affairs led to a situation whereby such officers ignored what they did
not like or understand about the policies and furnished the programmes with what they liked
or understood. This adds up to the fact that the translation of some policies was subject to cooptation. Another factor which increases the possibility of co-optation is that the levels
involved in the implementation of curriculum are rather too many, that is, national, regional ,
district and school level .However, it must be noted that co-optation may be overcome by
making policies clear as well as involving several people who are experts in the planning and
implementation process.
The adoption of Programmes Passage
In Zimbabwe, the adoption of local syllabus/programme is not voluntary but is enforced. This
does not mean that there is no slippage. In subjects like AIDS Education and Guidance and
Counselling, adoption of local programmes is symbolic in the sense that the subjects may
appear on the school time table but are not taught because teachers are not well versed in
them. The subjects do not even have syllabi and this may result in teachers having a feeling
that they are not important subjects but only an extra burden to their normal teaching load.
This state of affairs brings about low consonance towards the subjects, hence high slippage.
The Political Economy programme was not adopted due to lack of consonance by some
members of the community, especially the church community.
Despite these rare cases of slippage, compliance to adoption of most of the programmes is
very high due to the fact that adoption is compulsory. In order to promote acceptance of new
curriculum programmes by users, the government through CDU structures carries out
rigorous awareness and sensitization campaigns based on the new programme through
orientation sessions, conferences and meetings. Berman (1978:169) argues that incentives
increase the acceptance of a new programme by users. In Zimbabwe, schools that implement
government programmes well are awarded a prestigious prize by the Ministry of education
called the Secretarys Bell. The awarding of this prize annually has impacted favourably
towards the adoption of new programmes.

The passage of Micro-implementation

This involves the adaptation of a project/curriculum to a local organizational setting such as a
school. It is a process whereby a locally adopted programme/curriculum leads to an
implemented practice. Berman and McLaughlin (1972:172) warn that micro-implementation
implies the need for local organizational change and such change never comes easily.
In some cases this passage may suffer from what Berman (1978:170) calls adoption fallacy
in the sense that some of the new programmes can be misinterpreted by users, for example,
Education with Production was interpreted as manual labour by most users. This could be
attributed to the fact that educational authorities ignored the micro-implementation passage
by not providing adequate orientation sessions for users. Another feature which characterizes
the implementation of new programmes in Zimbabwe is mutation. This means a certain
programme adopted in different sites may be characterized by different implementation
practices, for example, Zim-Science was implemented according to local organizational
settings. However, the government may put various measures to overcome mutation through
activities of the phases of mobilization, deliverer implementation and institutionalization.
The Mobilisation/adoption Phase
This phase is meant to make people accept the programme. It is crucial as it gives the users a
clear picture of the programme:-its philosophy, how it should be implemented, etc. In other
words it eases the users concerns of the curriculum generating deliverer support and
commitment. Berman (1978:177) divided this phase into two major activities namely
...policy image development and planning Under policy image development activity,
educational authorities in Zimbabwe are found to be doing their best ...to set up an adequate
orientation environment(Taylor,1987b:23), by facilitating staff development workshops
for teachers, School Heads, Education Officers and Provincial Directors on syllabi
interpretation and the methodologies to be applied in teaching the new programmes. In other
words, when a new programme is introduced, all stakeholders are entitled to what Taylor
(1988b:110) calls advocacy of educational personnel. This is whereby teachers, School
Heads, Education Officers and Provincial Directors are provided with orientation sessions so
as to furnish them with adequate information and materials on the new programme.
The planning activity in Zimbabwe is characterized by planning or making decisions on the
material and human resources required for implementing the new curriculum in schools. The
activity also includes deciding on how to fund the new programme and ways of getting

support from both internal and external stakeholders. Most curriculum programmes in
Zimbabwe used to be sponsored by external donors such as Plan International, SIDA,
Netherlands, et cetera-a move indicating adequate planning for external support. In support of
this Taylor (1988a) propounds that education authorities should plan for staff provision,
funds, facilities and materials required by teachers and schools. In Zimbabwe teachers
guides are written for use by teachers, personnel assigned at various levels, resources
allocated and objectives set as an effort to plan for the implementation of curriculum.
The deliverer Implementation/Teacher Use Phase
Berman (1978:178) postulates that there are four forms of adaptation deliverers can choose
from:
(1) Non-implementation, no implementation of the project plan or in deliverer behaviour;
(2) Co-optation, no adaptation in deliverer behaviour but adaptation in the project to
accommodate existing routines;
(3) Technological learning, no adaptation of the project plan but adaptation of routinized
behaviour to accommodate the plan;
(4) Mutual adaptation, adaptation of both curriculum and deliverer behaviour. In Zimbabwe
mutual adaptation is the form which is dominant. In more specific terms, there is mutual
adaptation of new programmes in the sense that the programme as planned will be
adapted to the behaviour of the teacher but on the other hand the behaviour of the teacher will
change to be in line with the requirements of the programme Taylor 1978b:24).
In order to realize the mutual adaptation, staff development activities such as syllabi
interpretation, teaching methods, production of teaching/learning materials and actual lesson
delivery should be done at school and/or classroom levels. These activities may be organized
by the School Head or any Instructional Leader who can source facilitators from within
and/or without the school. At the school, teachers may come together to compile a school
syllabus from the national syllabus. Roitman and Mayer (in Marsh, 2009:101) argue that
curriculum innovations enacted in a classroom should closely-if not completely correspond to
what is planned. Thus, Ariav (1988) advises that many teachers lack an understanding of
what the curriculum should be (curriculum literacy) and how best to teach it, hence the
planned curriculum or syllabi should be highly structured, giving teachers explicit
instructions about how to teach it. This leads to fidelity of implementation. Critiques of
fidelity of use like Tyack and Cuban (1995) and Carless (2004) contend that this

approach ignores teachers prior experiences, almost as if it were a virtue to have amnesia
about teachers backgrounds. Most primary school syllabi in Zimbabwe are explicit on what
and how to be taught as well as giving room for teacher creativity and initiative, thus giving
provision for both mutual adaptation and fidelity of implementation.
The School Head with the assistance of his deputy, senior teachers and heads of departments
makes sure that every teacher plans and teaches the new programme. Lesson observations by
the School Head and other senior members of staff are done in order to assist teachers
implement the new programme effectively. Demonstration lessons on how best to teach the
new programme can be held so as to enhance the teachers competencies in lesson delivery.
Peer discussions on the teaching of the new programme also feature as a way to improve
lesson delivery.
Over and above what has been discussed under this phase, successful implementation of the
curriculum is influenced by teacher support; their stages of concern of the
innovation/curriculum; their level of use as well as their innovation configuration.
The Institutionalization Phase
In Zimbabwe, there are many supportive conditions/measures put in place for new curriculum
programmes to become institutionalized, that is, making the new programmerationalised
and built inor Incorporated into the ordinary structures and procedures of a school
(Taylor 1978b:25). In other words, it is how the new programme becomes part and parcel of
the existing structure or system. To borrow from Miles et al (1987:13), it is a process
through which an organization assimilates an innovation into its structure.
To ensure institutionalization, educational authorities should provide teachers and schools
with adequate resources for implementing the new curriculum. Supervision of teachers by
Education Officers, School Inspectors, School Heads, Heads of Departments and groups of
teachers (peer supervision) also contributes to the institutionalization of a new programme.
Incentives offered to teachers for implementing curriculum programmes effectively by
School Heads or School Development Associations/Committees impact positively on
institutionalization of a programme. Training offered at teachers colleges and universities
which is aligned to government programmes helps to legitimize new programmes that is
making them accepted by people using them (Miles et al 1987:10-11).

Organisations like Better Schools Programme Zimbabwe(BSPZ), Better Environmental

Science Teaching(BEST),Science Education In service Teacher Training(SEITT),Quality
Education In Science Teaching(QUEST) and others used to provide continuous in service
training for teachers:-a move which increases institutionalization of a programme. BSP (Z)
which is the mother body of all these teacher development organizations operates
according to what is referred to as the six (6) implementation strategies for government
programmes. Advocacy is the first one, whose purpose is to sensitize teachers and other users
on the new programmes. The second one is Teachers resource centres, which are
information centres, found at national, regional, district and cluster (local) levels.
These centres provide information and material support to teachers for implementation of a
new curriculum. Action Research is the third one which allows teachers to carry out research
to establish their training needs as related to the new programme. The identified training
needs are ironed out through training. The fourth strategy involves provision of relevant inservice training for teachers. The fifth is Materials Production, a strategy whereby teachers
help each other or are assisted by facilitators to make relevant teaching materials for the
programme. Lastly, there is Monitoring and evaluation, which is meant to establish the
strength and weaknesses of the programme, by users, with a view of improving it.
These six BSP (Z) implementation strategies proved to be very helpful in enabling teachers
and other school staff to assimilate what they have learnt during implementation. However,
the dissolution of posts for BSPZ coordinators in most districts of the country has been a
blow to the core business of the programme, hitherto the successful curriculum
implementation. Delport and Makaye (2009) describe this move as a lack of commitment by
the government to address the issue of quality of Education. On the other hand,
institutionalization should enable regional staff and district staff to incorporate new routines
brought about by the change into decision making or budget, personnel support and
instruction (Berman 1981:274).
The Passage of Technical Validity
This implies to how good the programme is. That is whether it produces the desired
outcome (if implemented faithfully). In Zimbabwe new curriculum programmes strive to
produce desired outcomes in the sense that the compulsory adoption and various mechanisms

for monitoring and evaluation leads to /high percentage of use. Also, efforts carried out at
micro-implementation level enable to stabilise the new programme through increasing its
use and mastery as well as changing the users attitudes, knowledge and skills. The increase
in use and mastery of the new programme results in changing the behaviour of students in
line with the programmes objectives. Also, the internal and external support which prevails
in Zimbabwes curriculum implementation process contributes towards the achievement of
the desired goals. In short, activities carried out in mobilization, deliverer implementation and
institutionalization phases are of significance to the attainment of the desired outcomes. Table
1 above summarizes the processes of macro-and micro-curriculum implementation in
Zimbabwe.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the chapter brought to the fore the knit grit ties of macro and microimplementation of the school curriculum in Zimbabwe. The major distinction being their
institutional settings, for micro implementation the setting is at local level whilst macro
implementation is an entire policy sector spanning from federal to local level. The different
phases of the implementation passages were discussed and examples given as they relate to
Zimbabwe. However, despite the operational challenges which have not been explained,
such as inadequate resources, stable organizational settings, et cetera. Zimbabwe has a bright
future of a successful curriculum implementation story.

References
Berman P. (1978). The study of macro and micro-implementation. Public policy.26 (2),
springs: Pp. 157-184
Berman P(1981). Educational Change. Lehming, R and Kane, M.(Eds).Improving Schools.
Using what we know. Beverly hills. Sage Publications.
Delport A, Makaye J(2009). Clustering schools to improve teacher professional development:
Lessons Learnt from the Zimbabwean Experience. Africa Education Review. 6(1): 96-106.
Fullan M (1983). Evaluating Programme Implementation:What can be learned from Follow
Through. Curriculum Inquiry. 13(2): 217-219
Fullan M(1991). The New Meaning Of Educational change. Cassell:London
Hunkins FP, Ornstein AC(2013). Curriculum :Foundations ,Principles And Issues. Pearson
Education, Inc: USA
Jansen

(2009).

Curriculum:

Organizing

Knowledge

for

the

classroom.Alida

Terblanche:Cape Town
Marsh C.J (2009). Key Concepts For Understanding Curriculum. Routledge: New York
Taylor C.A (1988b). The Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in schools with special
reference to gifted education. Unpublished report to the Human services research council
Taylor C.A. (1987). Planning and operating programmes for gifted students. Gifted
International. 5(1): 21-26-29
Zimbabwes Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture(1986). Organisational Structure and
Functions of CDU. Unpublished Report