wktsang/edm6210/handout/2017-Topic 6... · Web view1.Keynesian welfare-state: It refers to the...

EDM 6210EDUCATION POLICY AND SOCIETY

Topic SixGlobal Education Reform in the 21st

Century: In Search of Sociological Explanations

A. Education Reforms as Phenomena of Global Convergence: Why?1. Education Reform in the UK

a. Lifetime learning: A policy framework (1996) b. The learning age: A renaissance for new Britain (1998)

2. Education Reform in the USa. Goal 2000 Act, 1994b. A nation learning: Version for the 21st Century (1997)c. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

3. Education Reform in Canadaa. Knowledge Matters: Skills and learning for Canadians (2002) b. Achieving excellence: Investing in people, knowledge and

opportunity (2002)4. Education Reform in Australia

a. National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1996) Lifelong learning ―― Key issues

b. Dept. of Education, Science and Training (1998) Learning for life: Review of higher education financing and policy (1998)

c. Dept. of Education, Science and Training (2003) Lifelong learning in Australia

5. Education Reform in South KoreaMinistry of Education Adapting Education to the Information Age (2000-2004)

6. Education Reform in Singapore: Education for Learning Society in the 21st Century (2000)

7. Education Reform in Taiwan教育改革行動方案, 19988. Education Reform in HKSAR

Education Commission (2000) Education for Life and Education through Life

9. OECD (1991) The lifelong learners in the 1990s.OECD (1996) Lifelong learning for all.OECD (2001) Education policy analysis 2001.

10.UNESCO (1996) Learning: The Treasure from within.11. European Commission (1995) Teaching and learning: Towards the

learning society

B. In Search of Sociological Explanations1. The Rise of Neoliberal Governance & the Constitution of Quasi-

Market Mechanism in Education2. The Advent of the Global Governance in the form of Technologies of

Assessment & Accountability

1W.K. TsangEducation Policy & Society

i. The Rise of Neoliberal Governance &the Constitution of Quasi-Market Mechanism in Education

A. The Post-WWII Welfare State and its Crisis:1. Keynesian welfare-state: It refers to the model of governing commonly

adopted by Western capitalistic-democratic state since the post-WWII decades. It has been characterized by Bob Jessop as the “Keynesian Welfare National State (KWNS)” (1999). a. Governing orientations of the KWNS: KWNS signifies four specific

governing orientation of the post-WWII statei. Keynesian approach to economic policy by means of demand-

side management of public expenditure target national full employment;

ii. social-welfare provisions in the form of social-wages, which aim to facilitate the reproduction of labour power for capitalistic economy;

iii. confinement to the scope within its national boundary and the interests of its nationals and citizens;

iv. state-interventions in the forms of nationalization, direct provisions of services, substantial subsidies, etc.

b. Governing measures of KWNS: In order to achieve the above policy orientations, post-WWII state adopted specific governing measures of i. Centralized planning;ii. Top-down implementation;iii. Bureaucrat-professional led delivery;iv. Political-hierarchical accountability

c. The Westminster-Whitehall model of the UK: The model of governing adopted by the UK has the characterized as one of the typical cases of post-WWII KWNS. It has be labeled as the Westminster and Whitehall models, which signify two of the specific features of UK governing model, namely the traditions of the parliament sovereignty and professional public servants. The Westminster-Whitehall model can be summarized as follows


d. The Old Public Administration in the US: A comparable tradition to the “Whitehall Tradition” can also be found in the US. It is commonly called the “Old Public Administration”. For example, Denhardt and Denhardt have summarized the tenets of the “Old Public Administration” tradition as follows. (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, Pp. 551-552)“● Public administration is politically neutral, valuing the idea of

neutral competence.● The focus of government is the direct delivery of services. The

best organizational structure is a centralized bureaucracy.● Programs are implemented through top-down control

mechanisms, limiting discretion as much as possible.● Bureaucracies seek to be closed system to the extent possible,

thus limiting citizen involvement.● Efficiency and rationality are the most important values in public

organization. ● Public administration do not play a central role in policy making

and governance: rather, they are charged with the efficient implementations of public objectives.

● The job of public administration is described by Gulick’s POSDCORB (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Co-Ordinating, Reporting, Budgeting).”

2. The Discourse of the crisis of the welfare stateSince the 1970s, welfare states in most of the Western industrial societies witnessed a series of crises and public critiques. They included


Westminster Tradition Whitehall Tradition

Public authority of the sovereign state rests on the institution of democracy

Public servants of political neutrality & public anonymity

Rule by the majority in the House of Commons

The Cabinet & its functional ministers

Executive decisions to be checked & balanced by the Parliament

Accountability through periodical election

Expertise based on management science and policy science

Tradition of “public spirits”, i.e. duty of defending “the public interest”

Accountability to the respective functional ministers

a. Oil crisis and global economic recessions in 1973;b. Fiscal crises in the forms of mounting deficits in most of

government budgets the Western industrial societies;c. Rising criticisms on the inefficiency of the ever-growing state

bureaucracies;d. Critiques on overloading the state;e. Critique of the effects of de-commodification of the welfare states

on the capitalist production sectors;f. Neoliberal’s “war-cries” of “roll back the state”.

B. The Rise of Neoliberalism in Public Administration and Policy Studies: 1. As a result of the discourse of the failure of the post-WWII welfare

state, political parties of Neoliberalism came to in several Western countries since the 1980s. They had remained in power for over a decade. For examplesa. From 1979 to 1997 the Conservative Party led by Margaret

Thatcher and then John Major rule over the UK from 18 years;b. From 1981-1993 the Republican Party presided by Ronald Reagan

and then George H. W. Bush governed the US for 13 years;c. From 1982 to 1998 the Christian Democratic Union led by Helmut

Kohl ruled over the West Germany and then the Unified Germany for 17 years.

2. David Harvey’s conception of Neoliberalism a. “Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic

practices that proposes that (i) human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedom and skill within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property right, free market, and free trade. (ii) The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices….State interventions in markets (once created) must be kept to the bare minimum.”’ (Harvey, 2005, P. 2; my numbering)

b. “There has everywhere been an emphatic turn towards neoliberalism in political-economic practice and thinking since the 187os. Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision have been all too common. Almost all states ….have embraced …some version of neoliberal theory and adjust at least some policies and practice accordingly.” (Harvey, 2005, Pp. 2-3)

c. “The advocates of the neoliberal way now occupy positions of considerable influence in education, in the media, in corporate boardrooms and financial institutions, in state institutions, and also in those international institutional institution such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World trade Organization that regulate global finance and trade.” (Harvey, 2005, P. 3)

d. “Neoliberalism has, in short, become hegemonic as a mode of discourse. It has pervasive effects on way of thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way


many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world.” (Harvey, 2005, P. 3)

3. Public Sector Reform & Neoliberalism: To many researchers of in the theory of state, the major policy levers of Neoliberalism is the so-called “Public Sector Reform” initiated since the 1980s. a. The background: As Jan-Erik Lane underline: (1997, P. 2)

“The public sector reform drive was initiated during the 1980s in the advanced capitalist democracies as a response to the public sector expansion process that had been such a dominant feature of the OECD countries after the Second World War. In the early 1980s there was a realization that the public sector had a profound problem in relation to how well its various programmes were operating, given the fact that the public sector had grown from below 25% to over 45% of GDP in a couple of decades as an average.”

b. As a result, a series of reforms were launched by central governments in most of the OECD countries. These so-called public sector reforms have been related by researchers as the “Chicago-School” teaching (Lane, 1997) or the advent of “Neoliberalism” (Harvey, 2005).

c. The policy features of the public sector reforms: Different researchers have characterized the policy features in different ways, for example i. Jan-Erike Lane (1997) has characterized the reforms in OECD

countries by three features, namely deregulation, privatization and marketization (DPM);

ii. Christopher Hood (1991; Pp. 4-5) has labeled the reform in the UK as the New Public Management and characterized it with seven “doctrinal components: (1) hands-out professional management in the public sector; (2) explicit standards and measures of performance; (3) output control; (4) disaggregation of units in the public sector; (5) competition; (6) private-sector styles of management practice; and (7) greater discipline and parsimony in resource use.

iii. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler have formulated the reforms of the US government into “ten principles of entrepreneurial government ” (1992, P. 20). They simplify them as follow:“Most entrepreneurial governments (1) promote competition between service providers. (2) They empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy, into the community. (3) They measure the performance of agencies, focusing not on input but on outcomes. (4) They are driven by the goals ─their missions ─not by their rules and regulations. (5) They redefine their clients as customers and offer them choices ─between schools, between training programs, between housing options. (6) They prevent problems before they emerge, rather than simply offering service afterward. (7) They put their energies into earning money, not simply spending it. (8) The decentralize authority, embracing participatory management.


(9) They prefer market mechanism to bureaucratic mechanism. And (10) they focus not simply on providing public services, but on catalyzing all sectors ─public, private and voluntary ─into action to solve their community’s problems.” (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, 19-20, original emphases)

4. The ideology of Managerialism & Neoliberalism: a. By ideology of Managerialism, John Clark stipulates that it “can be

thought of as equivalent to the concepts of professionalization and professionalism. These terms refer to processes by which an occupational group claims to be the possessors of a distinctive - and valuable – sort of expertise, and uses that expertise as the basis for acquiring organizational and social power.” (Clark, 2000, p.9)

b. The proliferation of the ideology of managerialism has constituted “A system dominated by central government departments, local authorities …, and based upon the values and practices of public administration … is being replaced by a new set of practices and values, based upon a new language of welfare delivery which emphasizes (1) efficiency and value for money, (2) competition and markets, (3) consumerism and customer care.” (Butcher, 1995, quoted in Clark et al., 2000, p. 6; my numbering)

c. As a result, Clark characterizes the spreading of managerialism has initiated the so-called New Public Management (NPM) in the filed public administration. “NPM includei. Attention to output and performance rather than inputs;ii. Organizations being viewed as chains of low-trust relationship

linked by contracts or contractual type processes;iii. The separation of purchaser and providers or clients and

contractor roles within formerly integrated processes or organizations;

iv. Breaking down large scale organization and using competition to enable ‘exit’ or ‘choice’ by service users;

v. Decentralization of budgetary and personal authority to line managers.” (Clark et al., 2000, p. 6; my numbering)

5. To summarize the varieties of conceptual formulation of the rise of Neoliberalism in the filed public administration and policy, the movement can be categorized into four dimensions. They area. Hollowing out the stateb. Bringing in the marketc. Dismantling the hierarchy (public bureaucracy)d. Constructing the hegemony of performativity and auditing culture Accordingly, the New Public Management proposed by politicians and scholars of Neoliberal stance can be synthesized as follows.


C. Neoliberalism in Education ReformIn 1988 the UK parliament passed the Education Reform Act 1988 proposed by the Margaret Thatcher government. It signified the first enactment of ideas of Neoliberalism in the public education domain. It has been construed by scholars as a watershed event in the twentieth century’s educational development (Levin and Fullan, 2008; Sahlberg, 2011). 1. Accountability and Performativity Reform

a. Accountability: Accountability is “an arrangement whereby ‘an account must be given’ to some authority, as an indication of compliance with defined standards, and as demonstrated by improvement on baseline or performance measures’ as determined by some form of assessment (Elmore, Abelmann, and Kenyon, 1996; quoted in Rhoten et al., 2003; p.14)

b. Different accountability mechanisms in schooling systemsi. Input-based accountability mechanism: In the 1960s and 70s,

schooling systems in the US, UK as well as HK were adopting input-based accountability mechanism to oversee the operations of front line schools by specifying the spending of financial inputs down to individual items in the school accounts.

ii. Output-based accountability mechanism: In late 1980s and early 1990s, under the influence of neo-liberal politics, input-based accountability mechanisms were replaced by policies of (i)


The Neoliberal Reform & New Public Management

Hollowing out the state- Decentralization & delayering of

decision making - Devolution of service delivery

(Steering rather than rowing)- Contracting out, deregulation, &

privatization

Bringing in the Market- Introducing market competition

into the public sector- Open & reverse bidding among

agencies by lower cost and higher standard

Dismantling the Hierarchy- Displacement of anonymous

public servants with high prolife public managers

- Introducing the organizational culture of entrepreneurship

- Restructuring rule-driven organization into mission-driven

Constituting the auditing culture- Management by results &

outcomes rather than by input & procedure

- Developing quantifiable performance indicators

- Introducing ranking or league-table system

decentrialization of authority to school-based level and (ii) output-based accountability mechanism.

iii. Performance-based accountability mechanism: Among the outputs of schools, students’ academic performances have risen to most dominant positions to serve as the “unit of account” in the accountability mechanism of both the US and UK.

c. Performativity: “Performativity is a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation, or even as system of ‘terror’ in Lyotard’s words, that employs judgments, comparison and displays as means of control, attrition and change. The performances―of individual subjects organizations―serve as measures of productivity or output, or displays of ‘quality’, or ‘moments’ of promotion or inspections. They stand for, encapsulate or represent the worth, quality or value of individual or organization within a field of judgment. ‘An equation between wealth, efficiency, and truth is thus established.’ (Lyotard, 1984, P. 46) The issue of who controls the field of judgment is crucial.” (Ball, 2001, P. 210)

2. Standardization and technologies of assessment: a. In order to turn educational services and human activities of

teaching and learning into accountable “units of account”, which are comparable across diverse socio-economic localities, various school settings and different classroom environments; standard, quantified and calculable measures have to be developed and imposed on students’ learning outcomes, teachers’ teaching proficiencies, school effectiveness, and school districts’ administrative efficacies. These standardized assessments have to be implemented in different stages along the schooling process so as to impose thorough inspections on various stages and sectors of the schooling system. For examples, in the UK it has been stipulated in the policy of national curriculum, national assessment and school inspection and in the US it has been stipulated in the No Child Left Behind Act.

b. Stephen J. Ball and has collaborators (Ball, et al., 2012) have applied Michel Foucault’s theory of technologies of power to the analyses of the UK policy measures, such as the National Assessment, School Inspection, School league Table, etc. They underlines that these measures have asserted “subjugating” effects on all parties concerned in the schooling system. And they have characterized these phenomena as “assessment technologies”.

3. Parental Choice and the rise of Parentocracy: Policy reform to enhance parent’s freedom to choose school placesa. Prestigious private school choices

i. Traditional “public schools” in UK and prestigious prep schools in the US: School choice by wealth

ii. Tuition tax credit programs in US: Choice for tax payersb. School voucher programs in the US

i. Milton Friedman's idea of voucher“Government could require a minimum level of schooling financed by giving parents vouches redeemable for a specified


maximum sum per child per year if spend on ‘approved’ educational services. Parents would then be free to spend this sum and any additional sum they themselves provided on purchasing educational services from an ‘approved’ institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit, or by non-profit institutions.” (Friedman, 1962, p.89)

ii. Voucher in practice in the US- Eligibility of students: restricted to disadvantaged students- Value of the voucher: Non-add-on voucher- Selection of students: Non-selective voucher, randomness &

siblings accompany- Participation of religious schools

c. Choice among public schools in the US:i. Community participation in decision of setting up of charter

schoolsii. Convertibility of private schoolsiii. Profit-making charter schools

d. Devolution and Diversity of school governance in the UK: In order relay the Neoliberal ideas of “rolling back the state” and “dismantling the hierarchy” to the domain of public education, the Thatcher’s Conservative government have introduced the policy measures of the “self-managing school” in the Education Reform Act 1988. They encouraged alternative forms of status of school governance other than those governing by the Local Educational Authorities under the centralized hierarchy of UK government. In retrospect, the policy initiative has practically dismantled the comprehensive schooling system that the Labour party and it governments had fought hard to established and sustained since the 1960s. Ironically, it was under the New Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010) that put the “one-size-fit-all” comprehensive secondary school system to death. (Chity, 2013, P. 94) It is evidenced by the fact that “By the time Gordon Brown’s government was defeated in the May 2010 General Election, …there was, in fact, a hierarchy of nearly 20 different types of secondary school, each with its own legal status and unique admissions procedures: private (independent) schools; city technology college (CTCs); (city) academies; grammar schools; independent trust schools; foundation specialist schools; voluntary specialist schools; community specialist schools; advanced specialist schools; beacon schools; foundation Schools; voluntary-aided schools; voluntary-control schools; community schools; foundation special schools; community special schools; pupil referral units; and learning support centres.” (Chitty, 2014, P.87)

e. The rise of parentocracy in schooling systemPhilip Brown’s conception of parentocracy as the third wave of education reformi. The development of mass schooling in the nineteenth century


ii. The comprehensive education and meritocracy movement, from the end of the WWII to the end of the 1970s

iii. The development of educational parentocracy in the 1980s under the impact of the politics of neo-liberalism

The concept of educational parntocracy indicates “where a child’s education is increasingly dependent upon the wealth and wishes of parents, rather than the ability and efforts of pupils.” (Brown, 1997, p. 393)

5. Constitution of quasi-market in public schooling system: Numbers of scholars have summarized the Neoliberal’s policy initiatives to restructuring the Post-WWII schooling system as the replacement of the comprehensive school (in the UK) and common school (in the US) with the mechanism of “Quasi-Market” (Glennerster, 1991; Le Grand & Bartlett, 1993; Walford, 1996) As a result, the Neoliberal policy initiatives may be summarized as follows:a. The demand-side of the quasi-market

i. Enhancement of parental choiceii. Privatization of public-school sectoriii. Devolving schools governance from the governmental control a

diversity of governance o private and public enterprises. iv. Establishment of consumer sovereignty in school management

b. The supply-side of the quasi-marketi. Standardization of school process: Performance indicators of

schools ii. Devolution and deregulation of school administrationiii. Quality-assurance inspection and auditing

c. The medium of exchange of the quasi-marketi. Performance-based accountabilityii. Periodical standardized tests for all studentsiii. Publicizing results of standardized tests in the form of school

ranking, School League Table, School Report Cardiv. Failing schools are required to improve within a designated

period or facing the prospect of close down


ii. The Advent of the Global Governance in the form ofTechnologies of Assessment & Accountability

A. Limitations and Pitfalls of the Neoliberal GovernanceSince the second half of the 1990s, 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 include1. 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”.

2. Fragmentation of the public sector: As the consequences of contracting-out, devolution (in the form of agencification and corporationaliztion), and privatization; the public sector, especially the public-service delivery sectors have been fragmented into diverse providers with different criteria and standards.

3. The growth of managerialism and performativity: To remedy to loss of direct supervision and control over the public agencies, the state has expand and 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.

4. 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.

B. The Structuration of the Network Governance: 1. 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) The governance reform launched by the New Labour was commonly advocated as the “Modernising Government” project or more generally called the Third Way. “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 one of trust.” (Richard & Smith, 2002, P. 238)

2. 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 1990s. It is commonly called the network governance (Sorensen & Tortfing, 2007) or some advocates would even simply call it the governance study (Rhodes, 1997). 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 network, which has emerged specifically in the 1990s.

3. 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):

“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 a. self-organizing and interorganizational;b. interdependence and resource exchange;c. rule of the game;d. significant autonomy.

4. Sorensen and Torfing’s conceptualization: Eva Sorensen and Jocob Torfing, both professors of Public Administration in Denmark, define network governance as follow.“We shall define a governance network as a. a relatively stable horizontal articulation of interdependent, but

operationally autonomous actors; b. who interact through negotiations; c. which take place with a regulative, normative, cognitive and

imaginary framework;


d. that is self-regulating within limits set by external agencies; and e. which contribute to the production of public purpose.” (Sorensen &

Torfing, 2007, P. 9)6. 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:a. Mutual dependence of actors which leads to sustainable relations

between them;b. In the course of interactions, rules are formed which regulate actor

behavior;c. Policy processes are complex and not entirely predictable because

of the variety of actors, perceptions and strategies;d. Policy is the result of complex interactions between actors who

participate in concrete games in a network;e. Network co-operation is not devoid of problem and needs process

of conflict management and risk reduction.” (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; quoted in Meuleman, 2008, P. 33)

5. 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 a. 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)

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. The interaction: undertaken by the actors are in the forms of exchanges of resources (material, informational, social, cognitive …resources), negotiations, and deliberations.

e. 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.

f. 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.

C. The Impacts of Globalization and the Rise of the Competition Sate1. Erosion of the sovereignty of nation-state:


a. 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.

b. 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 i. Fiscal discipline ii. Public expenditure priorityiii. Tax reformiv. Financial liberalizationv. Exchange ratesvi. Trade liberalizationvii. Foreign direct investmentviii. Privatizationix. Deregulationx. Property rights

5. The transformation of the welfare state to the competition statea. Philip Cerny’s conception of competition state:

i. “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)

ii. “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)

b. Policy features of competition statei. Erosion of economic nationalismii. Retreat of the welfare stateiii. Collapse of societal corporatism between labor and capitaliv. The advent of fragmented state and the process of hallowing out

the state by means of privatization, corporationization and marketization


iv. Compliance to the imperatives of global competitions, multinational corporations and transnational agencies of governance

c. 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. 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.

D. The Advent of the Global Education Reform Movement and Global Education Policy Network1. 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 1980s. 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)a. 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.

b. 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 knowledge-based 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.

c. 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)

d. 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)

e. 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

2. Global Education Policy Network: Accompany with the GERM, Stephen J. Ball argues that there emerges a “global education policy network.” a. “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)

b. The participants: i. 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)

ii. Another group of key players in the networks are “multinational private corporations, supernational development agencies, international donors, private foundations, …consulting firms, ...wealthy corporations, Pearson, McKinsey, and …venture philanthropy, ….” (Sahlberg, 2015, P. 143)

iii. The third type of participants consists mainly the international agencies such as “UNESCO, the OECD, ABD, DfD, USAid and others.” (Ball, et al., 2017, P. 9)

iv. 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)

c. 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).


i. 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 front-loaded advice and evaluation science.” (Peck and Theodore, 2015, P. 3-4)

ii. The effects of the advent of this “fast policy regime” include “the shortening /of policy-development cycles, fast-tracking 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)

iii. 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)

E. The Finish Way and/or the Fourth Way in Education ReformPasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator, in his oft-cited book Finish Lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (2015; 1st 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. 1. 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 1970s. 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)

2. 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 above-mentioned 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.


F. Reflection on the Experiences of Education Reform in Hong Kong …..


wktsang/edm6210/handout/2017-Topic 6... · Web view1.Keynesian welfare-state: It refers to the...

Documents

Transcript of wktsang/edm6210/handout/2017-Topic 6... · Web view1.Keynesian welfare-state: It refers to the...