The Global Educational Policy Environment in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Volume 26

This chapter presents a very broad synopsis of the intensification of education governance. It opens by narrating the multifaceted nature of governance and in what way it has developed as the axiom for professed policy problems that national educational systems are experiencing. The chapter chronicles the amplification of education governance and it explicates the metamorphosis and myriad typographies that “governance” has taken in responding to perceived endogenous and exogenous policy problems. It explains how managerialism and neo-corporate reforms sought to destabilize the activities of education governance and the results. In making this argument, it suggests that new public management policy prescriptions in education were part of the earliest form of disruptive innovation in education. It advances that educational managerialism, in hollowing out national educational systems, has generated the perfect breeding ground for the rise of newer modus operandi (or modes, styles, and arrangements) that governs and regulates education systems through the use of different techniques and mechanisms. The second half of the chapter discusses five different modus operandi that are inchoate in the post-managerialist era and highlights that in education, we have progressed beyond the movement from government to governance across national education systems and these systems are now employing additional modes of governance (vertical and horizontal) across different scales. The chapter concludes by drawing on the concept of a “Wicked Problem” (an unsolvable or difficult problematic, that is, fluid, paradoxical, and unfinished) to insinuate that education governance is an example of a wicked problem that has been and continues to be shaped by the ideological contours of endogenous and exogenous policy influences.

In focusing on the changing dynamics of education governance, this chapter draws on a few key concepts of policy borrowing research, notably the focus on reception and translation of global education policy, and sheds light on the temporal and spatial dimensions of policy transfer. It is not sufficient to simply acknowledge that one and the same global education policies means something different to different actors in different contexts. In addition, to providing a “thick description” of why global education policies are received and how they are translated, a specific strand of policy borrowing research – well represented in this edited volume – examines the global/local nexus and acknowledges that local actors are positioned simultaneously in two spaces: in their own (cultural/local) context and in a broader transnational “educational space.” From a systems theory perspective, the broader educational space is Umwelt (environment) and therefore local actors interact at critical moments with the broader educational space. The policy bilingualism (or in the work of Tavis Jules, the “policy trilingualism” when the local, regional, and global is taken into the account) is a result of policy actors operating simultaneously in two spaces that are populated with two different audiences: local and global actors. The example of bonus payments in Kyrgyzstan, a local adaptation of global teacher accountability reform, is used to explain how the method of comparison is used as an analytical tool to understand the global/local nexus in the policy process.

The first decades of the 21st century have witnessed unprecedented global political cooperation directed toward school teachers and the importance of quality education. This chapter discusses the current developments in the global educational policy field with a particular focus on teacher policy and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) program Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). In adopting a critical realist approach and based on a literature review, this chapter provides a synthesis of the governance mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes of TALIS. TALIS is treated as an observable outcome resulting from the actions of an underlying mechanism – information-processing policy instruments – and two contextual conditions. The first contextual condition suggests that there is a predominance of the knowledge-based economy paradigm in the political discourse, linking school teachers to economic growth and competitiveness. The second condition is provided by the consensus that education, notwithstanding technological developments, in the foreseeable future will remain a labor-intensive sector requiring a teacher workforce, as reflected in the representation of diverse interests in the TALIS programme and their commitment to find compromises on teacher policy. We will be able to assess in future decades the extent to which the mechanism will be triggered with regard to TALIS. However, in giving voice to teachers working in different settings, TALIS findings are not easy to reconcile with human capital theory or translate into “best practice” recommendations for teacher policies that can help drive knowledge-based economies.

This chapter considers the commitment of gender equality at universities and how it is expressed and measured via a gender equality scorecard. The Gender Equality Scorecard is seen as an accountability measure that seeks to build awareness of the magnitude of the problem (if it exists), interpret the meaning of the (in)equities, and move to action. It is regarded as a supportive mechanism to the development and implementation of a Gender Policy as articulated in The UWI Strategic Plan, 2012–2017. The development of a Scorecard is also seen as an example of collaborative governance in action that fosters engagement, commitment, and action across an institution. The proposed model draws upon the experiences of the Gender Equity Scorecards used by international development agencies and other higher educational institutions. The chapter proposes a framework and methodology using staff and student data from The University of the West Indies for the period 1990–1991 to 2011–2012 to build a Gender Scorecard. Finally, the Scorecard is seen as a tool to track performance related to the creation and enhancement of relevant structures and processes to institutionalize gender equality into the functions, operations, and governance of institutions.

Today, the global education market is one of the faster growing sectors, and it has attracted several new actors or what we call educational brokers who are now responsible for shaping national agendas. The newer actors in education are vastly different for the former players in that whereas previous actors engrossed national educational systems through the provision of technical assistance to meet international standards, best practices, and benchmarks, these newer players are for-profit entities that emphasize austerity, leanness, human resource maximization, performance targets, and competition. Therefore, in this new educational landscape, national governments are seen as “clients” who receive “expert” advice from “external consultants” that have an assortment of experiences across different sectors. Education governance is no longer a statist endowed but one that incubates in laborites of best practices resonates with existing case studies and results driven based on Big Date collected. We argue that educational brokers are responsible for the emergence of a hybrid form of education governance that use business and market techniques to reform strategies within the education sector. We conclude by suggesting that collectively educational brokers are using what we call “educational sub-prime mechanisms” – higher interest rates, reduced quality collateral, and less advantageous terms to counterweight higher credit risk – to manage educational portfolios and newer forms of educational risk.

In this chapter, increasing education civil society organization (CSO) and coalition participation in education and development policy processes is interpreted from the perspective of network governance theories. In 2015 “deadline” year for the Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals, I consider their significance and influences within the decolonizing and reorienting “policyscapes” that govern the region and/or sub-region that is variously known as Oceania and the Pacific. The chapter is based on continuing research begun in 2007 into education policy processes at multiple discursive and geographical levels of activity, with a focus on the Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and Melanesian sub-regions. A critical educational policy approach is taken, specifically drawn from the application of methods of Critical Discourse Analysis based in critical development and postcolonial theories. These analytical strategies are particularly salient in mapping and understanding how education policy actors, some “new,” have moved toward and through inclusive and protective regionalism(s). These had developed prior to and during the past quarter of a century of significant changes to governments, governing and governance in the Pacific, Oceania, and well beyond.

This chapter discusses the Government of Barbados’s 2014 introduction of partially student paid tuition fees for Barbadians attending the University of the West Indies (UWI), Cave Hill Campus. This introduction of a student paid tuition component came after fifty years of state-funded education at the local UWI campus. In this chapter I assert that this introduction of fees altered the existing postcolonial “social contract” that has developed in the country and that has been integral to Barbados being presented as a “model” for small developing states in the Caribbean and beyond. In the chapter I argue that the social contract in the country was altered in light of the alleged demands of financial crisis and that this crisis climate allowed for “decision-making by surprise” in a country in which collaborative education governance has grown to be accepted as the norm.

This chapter reviews the extent of influence new regionalism has had on the development of the education sector in South Asia. The history of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) development, and its regional state-supported initiative, the South Asian University, reflect a multitude of local challenges to effective regionalization for cross-national educational development. The chapter describes and distinguishes the various forms of regional efforts for cooperation and integration among government actors, nongovernmental organizations, and local activist groups and forums, to chart certain key regional efforts to consolidate intraregionalism as well as establish interregional relations of educational development and policy with countries of sub-Saharan African region. It utilizes the transnational advocacy networks framework to understand and interpret diverse manifestations of interregional cooperation between nonstate partners in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Tertiary education in the Anglophone Caribbean, particularly in Jamaica, has become highly competitive and complex and increasingly influenced by global neoliberal discourses. This free-market driven development is partly evidenced by the proliferation of national, regional, and international providers. Yet, within this seemingly unrelenting international influence, one can also detect more recent approaches by regional governments in concert and individually, through policy and systems of governance to reassert their sovereignty and retain some level of regulation and ownership of tertiary education. This chapter establishes an analytical framework for understanding these tertiary education governance changes by drawing on the principles of critical educational policy analysis. The chapter scrutinizes the multiple sources of power, international, regional, and national, that shape the rapid ongoing tertiary educational changes. Ultimately, the chapter argues that Jamaica’s tertiary education governance can be categorized as a shift from the governance mechanisms of “growth driven” to “regulatory control.” The chapter further posits that future regional shifts in tertiary education governance will be shaped by the continuing postcolonial struggles to adapt to the global order while protecting regional and national interests and aspirations.

There are several small territories in the Caribbean that have not yet gained their independence and remain under the control of a metropolitan power. These include the territories governed by the United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands. This chapter analyses the way in which education policy and reform are enacted in these quite unusual circumstances – with pressures and influences both from the territories and their respective metropoles. The chapter is constructed around two interlinked parts. The first considers the broader political and economic relationships that exist, and the place that education has within them. Both the UK and the Netherlands use language, such as, “partnership,” “prosperity,” and “renewal” to describe their approach to the territories, including in relation to the education sector. However, both governments have used different mechanisms to facilitate change – the British have a slightly more detached approach, while the Dutch are more hands-on. This has important implications for the way in which education is managed in their territories and the consequences that result – and these issues are explored further in the second part of the chapter. By focusing particularly on the Dutch BES (Bonaire, Saint Eustatius, and Saba) islands and Bermuda (a UK Overseas Territory), the chapter traces the contours of recent education reforms, and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of the particular approaches taken. The more flexible approach of the UK is perhaps preferable, but here too concerns are raised about neocolonialism and the lack of sensitivity when it comes to local norms and practices.

Throughout Latin America, policy-makers are struggling to reconcile two conflicting political pressures: (i) the push to become more globally competitive on the basis of international assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and (ii) the simultaneous need to address long-standing, entrenched inequities in both educational quality and access throughout much of the region. This chapter documents how policy-making elites throughout Latin America are trying to address these two goals by incorporating “evidence-based” policy solutions that can be empirically defended as promoting equity. However, scholars throughout Latin America argue that instead of promoting equity, an increasing focus on accountability in educational policy at the national level throughout the region has resulted instead in a shift in priorities from the governance of educational systems to evaluation of those systems, with the state functioning primarily as an Evaluative State. This argument is developed through secondary analysis of the Hispanophone and Lusophone academic education literatures of Latin America, whose robust and rigorous studies of these trends at both national and regional levels remain little explored within the Anglophone academic tradition.