Izobraževalna politika: globalni in lokalni procesi

Abstract

Education policy: global and local processes The monograph has five chapters, each consisting of several segments. List of references, index of terms and authors’ index are included. The chapter Education policy as an area of public activity contains four parts: What is education policy, Types of education policies, Aspects of education policies, and Education policy cycle. An obstacle in dealing with the topic is the existence of three English terms – polity, politics and policy – that in many languages, including Serbian, are reduced to a single one. This terminological, as well as conceptual and epistemological handicap has been resolved by referring to the arguments developed within the national educational science community. Along that lines, the concepts of public policy and education policy have been explained. Clarification also included the difference between the use of the concept of educational policy in singular and plural. Types of educational policies have been presented as an overview of criteria employed by different authors. The result was differentiation of the following categories, i.e., types of education policies: top-down and bottom-up; material and symbolic; substantive and procedural; regulatory and deregulatory; rational and incremental; distributive and redistributive. Each of the categories has been described and/or illustrated, including three additional types of education policies: rhetorical, enacted, and implemented. Various aspects of comprehension of the education policy have been outlined. Since it is basically the process of decision making by the authorities, different hierarchical levels are involved, from single schools, to local, regional and state educational institutions. At each level, educational policy may be perceived as a field of activity domain, general intention, specific proposal for action, decisions (official documents, by-laws, regulations) brought about by educational authorities, a program of activities, as well as its outcome. Decisions are the result of compromise reached by interested parties, they reflect sets of values in a society, and reveal sources of power that influence promotion of respective values. Cyclic model of public policies is a common approach to explanation of the process of formulation, implementation and evaluation of public, including education policy. The original model has not been substantially modified and usually includes the following phases: problem identification; policy formulation; decision making; policy implementation; policy evaluation. Each phase has been elaborated. The second chapter, Educational policy as an area of investigation, is divided into three parts: On educational policy research; Approaches to the education policy research, and Evidence-based educational policy and practice. Research on education policy may be directly focused on specific policy issues or more or less relevant to it. Pure academic (disciplinary) investigations are aimed at building up theories that contribute to the better understanding of society. There are, however, two additional types of applicative research in the domain of public policies: policy research and policy analysis. Main objectives of the first one are predictions of changes in the factors influenced by the public policies, while the second one deals with the comparison and evaluation of alternative means for the problem solution, i. e. assesses the impacts of alternative courses of action. Policy research comes predominantly from universities and other scientific institutions, and policy analysis frequently stems from analytical, consultancy or advisory agencies and companies. Another classification explained in the monograph is based on the purpose and subject of investigations. Analysis of policy addresses factors that shape public policies and their effects, as well as the content of public policies, while the analysis for policy also has two purposes: provision of information for the policymakers, and the public policy advocacy. Transfer of education policies, i.e., policy borrowing and lending, is liable to subgrouping, too. Normative research relies on comparison in order to identify and take over best practices (“learning from others”), while analytical research tries to reveal when, why and how such a borrowing takes place. Along with the previous classifications, normative and analytical researches are not mutually exclusive categories. Moreover, there is a lot overlapping between them. An interest for public policies goes back to 1950s, when governments tried to rely on social sciences in order to replace the existing intuitive and ad hoc decision making. The result was ‘rationalist’ conceptions of policy making, which prescribed several sequential steps consisting of policy formulation, decision, implementation and evaluation. Over time, this approach, perceived as technocratic and empirical, has lost popularity. Thus, it has been gradually pushed away by prevailing so-called critical approach, i. e. critical education policy orientation. Since educational system is based on sets of values, social justice, etc., research in this area includes studying both politics of education policy, as well as education policy as politics. Decisions on education are frequently based on intuition and impression, without taking into account local conditions and built-in mechanisms for supporting intended changes. Such attempts are usually doomed to fail, and the self-explained concepts of evidence-based politics and practices of education appear as the only logical solution. Arguments are provided as why an uncritical appraisal of the evidence provided by research may have limitations, in particular if the context has been ignored. The chapter three, Globalization and education, is made up of five headings: An overview of globalization; Theoretical foundations for analysing globalization in education; Implications of social and economic changes on the education policy; Global trends in education; International organizations and global educational policy. Along with its powerful impact on other sectors of society, globalization affects education policies all over the world. Societies with very different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds use the same terminology, organize educational activities and assess outcomes in a similar way. Social scientists recognize this fact, but differ in perception of causes and consequences of global processes. Representatives of three schools of thought, each relevant to the educational policy, are referred to as hyperglobalists, sceptics, and transformationalists. Within social sciences, each discipline has its own paradigms, and the following ones are particularly relevant when investigating the role of globalization in education: human capital theory, theory of modernization, world system theory and dependency theory, world culture theory, and theories of global capitalism. Though similarities between educational systems across the globe are apparent, as imposed by globalization processes, there is no global model of schooling. Even when global trends in education have been accepted, implementation in practice and achievements may frequently differ. Many authors are hesitant to accept and appraise the impact of globalization on education, due to the cultural differences. Social and economic influences did not affect local and national educational policies in the world until the second half of the XX century. International pressure coincided with the foundation of UNESCO and proclamation of the Universal declaration of human rights in 1948. Decolonization, over-theborder population mobility and economic interconnections speeded up this process. As for the Western Europe, abandonment of the concept of welfare states weakened the internal cohesion and, along with the affirmation of neoconservative and neoliberal policies, had a similar effect. Supranational factors exerted its influence in particular once the Cold war was over. Advances in information technology had an additional integration force for integrative processes in education. Globalization induced two main changes in the area of educational policies: the first one affected financing of education, and the second one brought about demands for competitiveness. Initiators of introducing market principles in education were USA in 1983 (A Nation at Risk) and United Kingdom in 1988 (Education Reform Act). The underlying logic was that the schools were more effective and efficient if exposed to competition. International organizations, consultancy groups and private corporations further promoted reforms in education based on market mechanisms. Economic benefits, as a ruling principle, shifted the emphasis from humanistic sciences to reading literacy, mathematics, and science in schools (as core subjects in the school curriculum). As speedy development of new technologies required ever improving knowledge and skills, the concept of lifelong learning has been encouraged. Since this approach centres the responsibility on individuals, there are tendencies to promote a more humane and democratic notion of lifelong education. Similarity of trends in education all over the world are reflected in the term Global Educational Reform Movement, coined by P. Sahlberg. It implies an epidemic pattern in “spread of an infection”, and manifests itself as: a) an increased competitiveness (private schools, charter schools, voucher system, etc.), b) standardization in education, with all accompanied advantages and disadvantages, c) concentration of the teaching process on key areas (reading, mathematics, science), which is further enhanced by widely apprised PISA testing, d) reliance on the corporative model of management, and e) test-based accountability policies, while the systemic level of responsibility has been largely ignored. Other authors formulate these tendencies in different ways (Portnoi, Ball), but all of them recognize that global educational processes are dictated by neoliberal orientation and market-based logics. The global educational discourse, with the tendency “one-fitsall”, has been largely promoted by international organizations. The leading role in this respect belongs to the World Bank, OECD, UNESCO, ILO, etc. Chapter four, Transfer of education policies, comprises three segments: Education policies transfer: Meaning and importance; Transfer of educational policies from a comparative perspective, and Effects of the education policies transfer. There are arguments that the traditional understanding of education as a phenomenon determined by a specific cultural context has been jeopardized by ignoring territorialisation and contextualization brought about by globalization. Several terms are used to denote the process of transplanting educational policies, such as policy transfer, policy borrowing and lending, policy attraction, policy learning, policy diffusion, policy convergence, etc. The meaning of each of them has been explained, as well as their effects. An interest for educational policies beyond the national borders goes back to the XIX century. However, there has always been an awareness that foreign experiences, though useful, cannot be uncritically replanted. Comparative studies frequently deal with the content of the educational policies to be transferred, i.e., what is worth to be taken over. Simultaneously, more intriguing issues are addressed, such as: why borrowed experiences have not been fully implemented in practice; why decision makers look for experiences abroad, when there are similar solutions at home; why controversial educational policies have been transferred; why copied models differ from their originals, and how transferred models undergo adoption to a new environment. Perception and application of globally developed and promoted concepts, as life-long learning or key competencies, depend on political set up, social organization, economic development, educational tradition, etc. In spite of the universally accepted rhetoric, effects are therefore different. Even though objectives are identical, one should recognize and apply solutions that are realistically achievable in the local environment. The fifth chapter, Selected topics on the educational policy, has the following segments: Reactions to the results of international assessment of students’ achievements; Transfer of the outcomes-based concept of education; Dual education as a model for reforming the secondary vocational education and training, and The means and effects of reaching public-private partnership in education. International testing of students’ achievements, PISA and TIMSS in particular, exerts its powerful influence on educational policy and practice, as well as the research (it is even referred to as a Holy Grail of the contemporary educational policies). The risks of simplification by relying on international ranking as a single measure of achievement, has been outlined. As shown by the use of New Zealand as an example, outcomes-based education developed within broader attempts to reform public management and has been supported by the World Bank. This point is illustrated by experiences from a couple of other countries. Dual model of education stems from the need for economic competitiveness, an increase of productivity and reduction of unemployment. Both international organizations, notably OECD, and European Commission strongly support this concept. German model, along with Austrian and Swiss ones, has been highly appraised and recommended in this regard. Slovenia introduced this approach in 1996, but gave up the idea ten years later. Enthusiasm has been replaced by disappointment in several other countries, too. The prevailing opinion nowadays is that neither the system as a whole, nor its parts may be successfully copied; instead, key components may be adopted to fit specific local context. Privatization in education implies establishment of schools by private profit and non-profit organizations (religious groups, companies) or individuals. A specific form of privatization in education is the public-private partnership, where private sector offers investment and services, traditionally provided by the government, while both parties share responsibilities and risks. This model was developed in 1990s, firmly supported by the World Bank, UNESCO, USAI D, Asian Development Bank, etc. Advantages and disadvantages of this model have been discussed.