EDM 6210 Education Policy and Society Summer 2017

EDM 6210 Education Policy and Society (Summer, 2017) Topic 6 Global Education Reform in the 21 st Century: In Search of Sociological Explanations 1

ii The Advent of the Global Governance in the form of Technologies of Assessment & Accountability 2

Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal Governance Since the second half of the 1990 s, the discourses around the limitations and pitfalls of the public sector reform waged by the Neoliberal governments have proliferated across different Western countries in both academic and practical arenas in the field of public administration and policy. These limitations and pitfalls include 3

Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal Governance z Hallowing the state: The consequences of devolution and privatization have substantially weakened or even dismantled the coordinating and controlling apparatuses of the state. As a result, the neoliberal reforms have been criticized as “steering out of control”. 4

Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal Governance z The growth of managerialism and performativity: To remedy to loss of direct supervision and control over the public agencies, the state has expand extend its quality-assurance mechanism and surveillance apparatuses. As a result, it has practically destroyed the alliance and trust between the officials and professionals built up during the post-war period in delivery of public services. A distrusting and depressing culture has been proliferating among the serving professionals in the public sectors, such as school teachers, social workers, doctors and nurses, etc. 5

Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal Governance z The advent of entrepreneurialism and the loss of public spirit: The introduction of competitions in the forms of open bidding and reverse audition among public-service providers has nurtured the entrepreneurial culture of cost-cutting and risk-taking among public-service agencies. As a result, it has gradually eroded away the long tradition of “public spirit” of serving and caring among civil servants and serving professionals. 6

Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal Governance z The advent of entrepreneurialism and the loss of public spirit: The introduction of competitions in the forms of open bidding and reverse audition among public-service providers has nurtured the entrepreneurial culture of cost-cutting and risk-taking among public-service agencies. As a result, it has gradually eroded away the long tradition of “public spirit” of serving and caring among civil servants and serving professionals. 7

8

The Structuration of the Network Governance z New Labour’s Modernizing Government project: After eighteen years of ruling, the Conservative Party was replaced by the New Labour Party led by Tony Blair in 1997. One of major reforms waged by the New Labour government was to deal with “the problem of fragmentation, which the Labour leadership believed was a symptom of eighteen years of Conservative state reforms. ” (Richard & Smith, 2002, P. 239) 9

10

The Structuration of the Network Governance z …. The governance reform launched by the New Labour was commonly advocated as the “Modernising Government” project or more generally called the Third Way. 11

The Structuration of the Network Governance “New Labour …advocates the idea of networks of institutions and individuals cooperating in mutually beneficial partnerships based on a relationship of trust. Labour is not seeking the outright abandonment of central bureaucracy or the welfare state. Nor does it advocate the wholesale use of markets instead it embrace a mixture of both. The aim is to utilize a combination of hierarchies, networks and markets, the mix of which is determined by the nature of the particular service to be provided. …No formal structure should be adopted to condition this collaboration; instead, different options should be available in order to ensure flexibility and responsiveness. The key to binding the various relationships together is 13 one of trust. ” (Richard & Smith, 2002, P. 238)

The Structuration of the Network Governance z Conceptualization of network governance: With the retreat of the Neoliberal governments and their DPM reforms of governance, a new paradigm of governance study rose to prominence in the late 1990 s. It is commonly called the network governance (Sorensen & Tortfing, 2007) or some advocates would even simply call it the governance study (Rhodes, 1997). 14

The Structuration of the Network Governance z At this juncture, it is illuminating to make a distinction between two meanings of the term governance in the literature. One is a broader meaning, which indicates governance as the models and institutional patterns adopted by a sovereign authority in governing its subjects (Peter, 1996; Kettl, 2005; Bevir, 2012). The other is a narrower meaning, which designate the term governance specifically to the governance in and by network. (Rhodes, 1997) In this workshop, the latter meaning of the term governance is adopted. Accordingly, the term “network governance” will be used to designate the model of governance in and by network, which has emerged specifically in the 1990 s. 15

The Structuration of the Network Governance z R. A. W. Rhodes’ conceptualization: Rhodes, professor of political scientist in the UK, in his book Understanding Governance: Policy Network, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (1997) renders the following definition to governance (i. e. network governance): 16

17

The Structuration of the Network Governance z “Governance refers to self-organizing, interorganiztional networks characterized by interdependence, resource exchange, rule of the game and significant autonomy from the state. ” (Rhode, 1997, P. 15) The definition signifies several structural features of network governance. They are yself-organizing and interorganizational; yinterdependence and resource exchange; yrule of the game; ysignificant autonomy. 18

The Structuration of the Network Governance z Sorensen and Torfing’s conceptualization: Eva Sorensen and Jocob Torfing, both professors of Public Administration in Denmark, define network governance as follow. (Sorensen & Torfing, 2007, P. 9) “We shall define a governance network as ya relatively stable horizontal articulation of interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors; ywho interact through negotiations; ywhich take place with a regulative, normative, cognitive and imaginary framework; ythat is self-regulating within limits set by external agencies; and ywhich contribute to the production of public purpose. ” 19

The Structuration of the Network Governance z Klijn and Koppenjan’s conceptualization: Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F. M. Koppenjan, both professors in the Netherland, specify the characteristics of network governance as: y Mutual dependence of actors which leads to sustainable relations between them; y In the course of interactions, rules are formed which regulate actor behavior; y Policy processes are complex and not entirely predictable because of the variety of actors, perceptions and strategies; y Policy is the result of complex interactions between actors who participate in concrete games in a network; y Network co-operation is not devoid of problem and needs process of conflict management and risk reduction. ” (Klijn & 21 Koppenjan, 2000; quoted in Meuleman, 2008, P. 33)

The Structuration of the Network Governance z A synthesis: In light of the policy practices of the New Labour and the conceptual formulations of s selection of European scholars, we may summarized the nature and structures of network governance as y The norm: Network governance is a form of governance alternate to the hierarchical top-down planning by the government and the market competition by the anarchy of self-interest. It signifies the third way of governing based on the normative values of trust, cooperation, negotiation, sustainability and flexibility. (Bevir, 2010, P. 185; Meuleman, 2008, P. 32) y The actors: The constituent units of a network governance are neither governmental departments, officials and civil servants; nor private self-interest seekers. They are organizations (either public, private or hybrid of public/private), which are autonomous but at the same interdependent. 22

The Structuration of the Network Governance z A synthesis: y …. . y The relationships: The constituent units are related the forms of horizontal (in contrast to hierarchical), collaborative (in contrast to competitive) and positive-sum (in contrast to zero-sum) game. y The interaction: undertaken by the actors are in the forms of exchanges of resources (material, informational, social, cognitive …resources), negotiations, and deliberations. y The framework: The interactions taking place within a network has to be framed in the form of “the rules of the game” (North, 1990) and regulations (Jordana & Levi-Faur, 2004). That is in the form of sustainable and resilient institution. 23

The Structuration of the Network Governance z A synthesis: y …. . y The process and outcome: Though a network governance with its diverse actors and dynamic interactions are working towards to overall public policy and objectives, the process and outcome of a network governance are not entirely predictable and controllable. They are work under the purview of complexity. 24

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition State z Erosion of the sovereignty of nation-state: y. Apart from Neoliberal’s policy initiatives of dismantling and hollowing the ruling capacity of the state internally, the governing capacities of the state have also been weakened externally by the process of globalization and Europeanization. The advent of the international organizations, such as the WTO, World Bank, European Union and OECD, have also eroded away some powerful policy instruments of the state, most notably, the governing instruments on international-trade, fiscal and monetary policies. 25

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z Erosion of the sovereignty of nation-state: y. The erosion of economic nationalism: The dominance of international institutions, especially imperatives mandated by WTO, MIF, World Bank, European Union, etc. , has greatly constrained the governance capacity of sovereign states in the domain of public finance and international trades. These constraints have been commonly called the “Washington Consensus”, which consist of 26

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z Erosion of the sovereignty of nation-state: y. The erosion of economic nationalism: …“Washington Consensus”, which consist of x. Fiscal discipline x. Public expenditure priority x. Tax reform x. Financial liberalization x. Exchange rates x. Trade liberalization x. Foreign direct investment x. Privatization x. Deregulation x. Property rights 27

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z The transformation of the welfare state to the competition state y. Philip Cerny’s conception of competition state: x“Globalization as a political phenomenon basically means that the shaping of the playing field of politics is increasing determined not within insulated units, i. e. relatively autonomous and hierarchically organized structures called states; rather, it derives from a complex congeries of multilevel games played on multi-layered institutional playing field, above and across, as well as within, state boundaries. ” (Cerny, 1997, p. 253) 28

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z The transformation of the welfare state to the competition state y. Philip Cerny’s conception of competition state: x…. x“Rather than attempt to take certain economic activities out of the market, to ‘decommodifiy’ them as the welfare state in particular was organized to do, the competition state has pursued increased marketization in order to make economic activities located within the national territory, or which otherwise contribute to national wealth, more competitive in international and transnational terms. ” (2000, p. 122 -23) 29

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z The transformation of the welfare state to the competition state y. Policy features of competition state x. Erosion of economic nationalism x. Retreat of the welfare state x. Collapse of societal corporatism between labor and capital x. The advent of fragmented state and the process of hallowing out the state by means of privatization, corporationization and marketization x. Compliance to the imperatives of global competitions, multinational corporations and transnational agencies of governance 30

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z The transformation of the welfare state to the competition state y. Education reform for enhancing global competitiveness of the nation: As Post-WWII welfare state gave way to the competition state, the education policy orientations of enhancing equality of educational opportunity and social justice adopted by governments in most developed countries after the WWII have also undergone some fundamental changes. …. 31

The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate z The transformation of the welfare state to the competition state y. Education reform for enhancing global competitiveness of the nation: …. . Instead, enhancing national competiveness in global economy and striving for excellence in global competition of human resources have become the primary objectives found in policy documents of education reform initiated by most of the developed countries at the turn of the new millennium. 32

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): Against the context of competition state and network governance, Pasi Sahlberg argues that, there emerges the trend of what he calls the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) among developed countries since the late 1980 s. He has also summarized the movement into a number of common features. (Sahlberg, 2015, Pp. 144 -147; see also Ball, et al. , 2017, Pp. 2 -3) 33

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): y. Increasing competition among school: This aspect of the global reform takes a variety of forms, such as increasing parental choices among schools; introducing alternative schools and private schools; ranking schools based on students’ performances on nation-wide standardized assessments; etc. 35

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): y. Standardization in education: The second feature of the GERM is to redefine the aim of education simply as students’ learning outcomes, more specifically, measurable and standardized outcomes. These standards may take the formats of competences, literacy, numeracy, etc. The traditional knowledgebased and intellectuality-nurtured curricula are relegated to mastery of skills. Furthermore, schools, teachers and students are all mandated to reach or pass these students. And schools that fall behind the standards are publicly labelled, stigmatized or even punished. 36

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): y. Focus on core subjects: Sahlberg underlines that “due to the acceptance of international student assessments such as OECD’s PISA and IEA’s TIMSS and PIRLS as metrics of educational performance, these core subjects (literacy, numeracy, and science subject) have now come to dominate what pupils study, teachers teach, school emphasize, and national education policies prioritize in most part of the world. ” (Sahlberg, 2015, P. 145) 37

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): y. Test-based accountability: It refers to “holding teachers and schools accountable for students’ achievement through external standardized tests. ” (Sahlberg, 2015, P. 146) “One consequence of this is that teachers devote increase attention to limited aspects of schooling, …and pedagogy is reduced to ‘teaching to the test’. ” (Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 3) 38

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Reform Movement (GERM): y. The use of corporate management models as a driver of organizational improvement: “Organizational practices are ‘lend by’ and borrowed from business, making educational institutions more businesslike and more like business. ” (Ball, 2017, et al. , P. 2 -3) Common rhetoric and slogans such as “best practices” and “what works” are made popular in the discourse and forum of global education reform discourse. 39

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network: Accompany with the GERM, Stephen J. Ball argues that there emerges a “global education policy network. ” 40

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y“Global education policy network” refers to a global education policy community, “a set of organizations, people and events that are joined up in different ways, in relation to a global project of education reform. This project is in general terms embroiled in and bringing about the neoliberalization of education—a steady flow of moves and changes, a process of attrition and colonization that is changing the global topography of education. The neoliberal project is a story of the never-inevitable ascendency of neolibalization, as an open-ended and contradictory process of politically assisted market rule. ” (Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 1) 42

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The participants: x. The primary participants or “movers” within this global network are what have been called “connection men” (Saunier, 2001; quoted in Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 9). They consist of “policy entrepreneurs and ‘solution providers’, advocates, network builders and brokers. ” (Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 9) This “new mobile class” is made up of “policy gurus, … consultants, bloggers, evaluator-advocates, and model peddlers. ” (Pack and Theodore, 2015; quoted in Ball, 2017, P. 11) They would provide services such as ‘best-practice’ codification, ‘what-work’ workshop, quick-fixed solutions clinics, ‘knowledge’ transfers, communities-of-practitioners building, etc. Ball, 2017, P. 11) 43

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The participants: x…. . x. Another group of key players in the networks are “multinational private corporations, supernational development agencies, international donors, private foundations, …consulting firms, . . . wealthy corporations, Pearson, Mc. Kinsey, and …venture philanthropy, …. ” (Sahlberg, 2015, P. 143) x. The third type of participants consists mainly the international agencies such as “UNESCO, the OECD, ABD, Df. D, USAid and others. ” (Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 9) 44

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The participants: x…. . x. Last but not least, the primary sponsors or purchasers of services from the network are of government agencies, i. e. “different parts of the state, and levels of the state (regional, national, federal, or local). ” (Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 6) 45

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The deliverables: The “goods and services” promised to deliver by this global education reform network have been characterized as “fast policy” (Peck and Theodore, 2015; Ball, et al. 2017). x. By fast policy, it refers to the policy regime “marked by the pragmatic borrowing of ‘policy that work, ’ by compressed development and implementation horizons, by iterative forms of deference to best practice and paradigmatic models, by enlarged roles for intermediaries as advocates of specific policy routines and technologies, and by growing reliance on prescriptively coded forms of frontloaded advice and evaluation science. ” (Peck and Theodore, 2015, P. 3 -4) 46

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The deliverables: …“fast policy”. . x. The effects of the advent of this “fast policy regime” include “the shortening /of policy-development cycles, fasttracking decision-making, rapid progamme rollout, continuing policy experimentation, institution and policy Darwinism, and relentless revision of guidelines and benchmarks. ” (Peck and Theodore, 2015, P. 4) 48

The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement & Global Education Policy Network z Global Education Policy Network… y. The deliverables: …“fast policy”. . x…. x. In the context of GERM reforms, the manifestation of this type of fast policy regime has been “the search for low-risk ways to reach learning goals. ” “This minimizes experimentation, reduces use of alternative pedagogical approaches, and limits risk-taking in schools and classroom. Paradoxically, pedagogical innovation is sought and celebrated …alongside cheap and easy standardized classroom and organizational practices. ” Ball, et al. , 2017, P. 2) 49

The Finish Way and/or the Fourth Way in Education Reform z Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator, in his oftcited book Finish Lessons 2. 0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (2015; 1 st edition, 2012) argues that “there is another way to improve education system, one that is different from that the market-based reform ideology. ” (Sablberg, 2015, P. 6) He is of course speaking of the education reform of Finland in the past 3 decades. 50

The Finish Way and/or the Fourth Way in Education Reform z The uniqueness of the Finnish education reform: Sahlberg underlines at the beginning chapter of the book that “Finland has a unique educational system because it has progressed from mediocrity to being a model contemporary educational system and a ‘strong performer’ in about 2 decades since late 1970 s. Finland is special also because it has been able to create an educational system where students learn well and where equitable education has translated into little variation in student performance between schools in different parts of country, as shown in all PISA studies since the 2000. This internationally rare status has been achieved by using reasonable financial resources and less efforts than other countries have expanded on reform efforts. ” (Sablberg, 2015, P. 6) 52

The Finish Way and/or the Fourth Way in Education Reform z More importantly, in relation to the concrete policy measures adopted by the Finnish, they are fundamentally different from the Neoliberal initiatives made popular in recent decades by the abovementioned GERM and global education reform network. These so-called the Finnish Way of education reform, or what Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley called the Fourth Way can be summarized as follows. 53

Reflection on the Experiences of Education Reform in Hong Kong …. . 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 57

2000

2006

2012

Reflection on the Experiences of Education Reform in Hong Kong …. . Excellence Equity Decrease in academic segregation 67

Topic 6 Global Education Reform in the 21 st Century (i) The Rise of Neoliberal Governance END