Yes but No: Convergence and Divergence of Education Policy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Yes but no: Convergence and divergence of education policy Eduardo Andere Shangri-la in school education policy: A Scholar’s Search Eduardo Andere Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Chapter 1 We all want schools to succeed: Can we in a global world? Or, is there a global model of education? Chapter 2 The Complexities of School Education: Prima Facie Findings Chapter 3 Lending and Borrowing Fads: Decentralization and Autonomy Chapter 4 Are Decentralization and Autonomy Related to School’s Quality? Chapter 5 “The Taming of the Shrew” in Education Transferring Chapter 6 World’s Map of School Education System: Mexico and Finland Chapter 7 Conclusions and Policy Suggestions Chapter 8 The Field Trip: from the Agenda to the Methodology References Annexes Annex 1 Table 1: Sampled countries by PISA 2000/2002 and 2003 results Table 2: Total visited schools by country, region, affiliation and grade level Table 3: Total number of observations of surveyed people by country, region and affiliation Table 4: Total number of observations of surveyed people by country, region, affiliation, level, principal and teachers Annex 2: Graphs from S1 to S6h of all kinds of schools and tables with number of observations for all categories Annex 3: Graphs from S1 to S6h of public secondary schools and tables with number of observations for teachers and principals. Annex 4: Graphs from S1 to S6h of all upper secondary schools and tables with number of observations for teachers and principals. Annex 5: Template Questionnaire for Principals. Annex 6: All Questions and Respondents Annex 7: International Experts’ Equivalent Benchmark Questions Abbreviations and Acronyms Introduction The idea In early September 2003 my first solo book on education policy had been published. As I was driving home from the publisher’s office, a drive that would take on an average traffic day in Mexico City between 45 minutes to an hour, I was thinking about my next research. I had been entertaining some ideas even before I finished the manuscript for the first book. With only factual information gathered by others, like the Department of Education in Mexico (“Secretaría de Educación Pública”—SEP) and the international organizations such as UNESCO, World Bank (WB) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), I had been able to determine the relative performance level of school education students in Mexico to other countries around the world and the relative performance in terms of inputs, such as expenditure in education. A natural follow-up research would be to map Mexico’s performance, not in terms of inputs and outputs of education policy and education systems, but in terms of processes and policies. To do this I would need to look inside the “black-box” of policy making. Looking inside the “black box” of education policy would allow me to determine the factors that do the trick and factors that are not really relevant towards the link among inputs, policy and outputs or performance. The only way to be able to compare black boxes would be by looking inside, from the field, at the way education policies and practices are shaped and believed to be shaped by experts and practitioners in the countries that would be objects of research. But if other education systems to be compared were drawn from a pool of high-performing countries (i.e. students performing highly in international standardized assessments), then the comparisons would be done with ideal models of school education. On average, those ideal models could very well mirror the image of a model-to-be Shangri-la school education policy or system, so to speak. I then decided to commence a new project that in the beginning, I thought, would take me one year or so. By the writing of this report more than three years have passed since the inception of the idea. This is so, because the project required many field trips to many countries and schools. At the end I visited 165 schools from the following countries or regions listed in chronological order: Finland, Sweden, France, United Kingdom (England, Scotland only), Ireland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, United States, Canada, Chile and Mexico. Unfortunately, I underestimated the difficulties of arranging an agenda of formal visits to schools. This underestimation changed my one-year task expectation to a three year endeavor. The field trip and findings Because I decided to search elsewhere for those ideal practices in policies and practices, I traveled to the field. I wanted to do this in order to gather data other than that which was 1 statistically-based. I was most interested in gathering qualitative data with thorough interviews and surveys of people embedded in their own education systems. Therefore, this is a quality-based report complemented by some narratives. Instead of looking only at data from international agencies and correlations between exam results and each country’s inputs, I traveled and visited schools and experts in high- performing countries or nations. I traveled because I wanted to find out, case by case, the similarity or proximity of practices and policies in school education across countries. I knew that I was in a very time-demanding and time-consuming project that required a lot of personal involvement. However, the solo field-trip task would secure homogeneity in the methodology and methods of gathering data and construing it. With a draft proposal in hand, I began to fix an agenda. Hundreds and thousands of interactions by means of e-mails, phone-calls and letters crowded my calendar book and my head before I was able to fix an agenda that would take me to the offices of principals or headmasters, the hallways and classrooms of schools and the offices of experts around the world. At the end, what I found is a different or alternative story to that laid out by looking only at hard and aggregated data. I found an alternative and complementary story to the stories of others like those from international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). However, in many ways, this story is neither better nor worse, than the OECD’s own story. This is then the story of this project from the inception of the idea and the planning of the agenda to the realization of the world trip. As told by friends of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, I was adding some flesh to the bones of statistical education research. In summary, I was just looking for evidence to support or reject the proposition of “best practices” in school education policies and systems. If best practices could be found, then I could add some evidence to the hypothesis of convergence in school education policies and systems and to the view of a world with declining national power or influence over school education policies and practices. With the advantage of hindsight I can say that the idea about best practices in education policy is a myth. But it is a very well dress up myth. The original humble idea was to map (classify) Mexico’s school education policies and practices in a world of policies and practices as defined by countries performing at the mean score or higher in PISA 2000 and PISA 2003. Mapping Mexico to the rest of the world could not be done otherwise since PISA is the only international assessment in which Mexico has taken part and the government has published results in a detailed format. Mexico, as is the case in many other countries, has been mapped or benchmarked against the rest of the world in terms of results, i.e. performance of students in international assessments. Mapping or comparing countries under this type of tabula rasa is a topic of much debate. However, at least for the case of Mexico, we do not have another truly 2 international assessment of educational performance. This is why PISA has allowed researchers in Mexico and elsewhere to get some standardized data about school education ready for comparison. PISA results, then, is an operational definition of performance. The publication of PISA results, at least from the performance point of view, has shown significant differences among countries. The results reveal Mexico as the country with the lowest performance level among OECD’s PISA countries. If Mexico is lagging in students’ performance, in many cases well behind the mean and the high-performing students from around the world (those performing above the OECD’s mean performance level), what could one say about performance at the level of policies, processes and systems of education? Are the OECD’s claims about “best practices” (see for instance, Guichard 2005, OECD 2005, OECD’s 2005b, Andreas Schleicher 2005 and 2006) from PISA findings true? Or, in other words, is there a global Shangri-la of school education policies and practices somewhere out there? PISA, and other measures of system performance based on student samples (TIMSS and PIRLS for instance), are very good at telling us where things stand (“photo comparisons”) in regard to some outputs and inputs, but they are not as good when they have to explain why things are the way they are and, therefore, they are not as good when telling policy- makers what to do. Even with the help of powerful software with modern techniques for multivariate analysis, the issues are so complex that these powerful techniques can tell us very little about the real world correlations and least about variables marrying cause to effect. Why? Because PISA would need greater, much greater fragmentation of samples to account for differences in schools and systems in order to marry cause to effect or make claims about what works and does not work in school education.