Conference Agenda

22 years since the ambition to build a “European space of education” was first stated (Hingel, 2001), there is now a new programme on the creation of a European Education Area. This includes a new set of strategic goals for the 2021-2030 period (Council of the European Union, 2021), underpinned by the EU’s multiannual financial framework for 2021-27. A step change in the scope of EU education governance, these developments have implications for policy and practice in member states.

The entry point of this ECER symposium is that education governance in the EU context has entered a new phase, characterised by an unprecedented capacity to bring about Europeanisation in education sectors across Europe. Europeanisation refers to policy definitions at the EU level, the EU as a distinctive system of governance, and the different ways policies are diffused and incorporated within policy making in member states, changing domestic policy priorities and discourses (Lange & Alexiadou, 2010; Radaelli, 2008).

While education sectors across Europe continue to be very diverse, the evolution of EU governance over the recent decades has gradually brought education and lifelong learning policy into the centre of the EU integration project. In the process, education has increasingly been opened up for influences from other policy domains, especially economic and social policy, and vice versa (Pépin, 2011).

In this respect, one major development has been the introduction of the European Semester as a main mechanism of socio-economic governance in 2011. The Semester has substantially strengthened the monitoring role of the European Commission and the Country-specific Recommendations issued as part of the Semester process have had consequences for policies on education and training in many member states. In addition, EU governance is increasingly characterised by cross-sectoral coordination linking technical work with strategic priorities, for instance evident in the ways that the European Semester has been linked with new targeted investments through the European Social Fund and other funding schemes. Still, EU governance of education and training is of a ‘soft’ (non-legal) nature. It is consensus-driven and relies primarily on policy learning, cooperation, and knowledge exchange, with funding still a relatively minor incentive for policy change in most member states (Graf & Marques, 2022; Milana et al. 2020; Sorensen et al. 2021).

These developments raise several questions of interest to education policy analysts. For instance, how do the European Commission and the Council of the EU – the most important EU institutions in education governance – shape the direction of education and training policy at multiple scales? How does the increasing array of EU policy instruments seek to influence the (very diverse) national and local approaches to education policies in member states? Are some member states more affected by EU education governance than others? Vice versa, how do different member states attempt to shape the EU agenda on education? What are the most prominent areas of policy learning, and how are knowledge(s) exchanged and used as a tool of governance in different areas of education and training? How does EU education governance in the post-pandemic environment differ from that of earlier decades?

This symposium provides comparative research insights into these pertinent questions. It examines processes of Europeanisation of education policy within a broader public policy perspective, drawing on research that considers the multilevel nature of EU governance as well as a variety of member state contexts.

Along with major developments in European socio-economic governance, adult learning has acquired higher EU political authority (Milana & Klatt, 2019). Since 2011, gaining a new specialization in this substantial policy area (Sabatier & Weible, 2007), the Council of the EU has been able to set Communitarian agendas on adult learning (CEU, 2011; CEU, 2021). Over time, the core belief about adult learning of the Council of the EU has changed, adapting to broader socio-political circumstances and new EU strategic priorities. If a decade ago the Council believed that (targeted) adult learning could potentially support economic and social progress, by 2021 it trusts the learning of adults as a lifelong endeavour for the whole population in support of resilient and sustainable communities, and digital and green transitions. Accordingly, the mechanisms foreseen to implement a communitarian agenda on adult learning have developed to include a whole-of-government approach and higher emphasis on data, monitoring, and evidence-based policy. Thus, new actors are brought into this policy sub-system (e.g., EUROSTAT, the EU agency EUROFOUND, the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks) (Milana & Mikulec, 2022). Previous research has shown that the visibility of adult learning rose under COVID-19, an ‘exogenous shock’ to both European and national systems (Bussi & Milana, forthcoming), which crisis narrative has the potential to prompt change in education policy (e.g., Morris, Park & Auld, 2022). But it is social dialogue and advocacy coalitions that helped to strengthen the alignment among different actors in the setting of a new European agenda for adult learning (2021-2030) under the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU (Milana & Mikulec, 2023). Drawing on a triangulation of data (documents, expert interviews, and participant observations), this contribution furthers this line of research by exploring how members of one specific coalition at EU level work together and learn from each other in their advocacy and lobbying for adult learning.

Bussi, M., & Milana, M. (forthcoming). The ideational policy trajectory of EU adult learning and skills policies up to COVID-19. In M. Milana, P. Rasmussen, & M. Bussi (Eds.), Research Handbook on Adult Education Policy. Edward Elgar. CEU (2011). Council resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning. OJ No. C 372/1, 20.12.2011. CEU (2021). Council Resolution on a new European agenda for adult learning 2021-2030. OJ No. C 504/9, 12.12.2021. Milana, M., & Klatt, G.(2019). Governing Adult Education Policy Development in Europe. In S. McGrath, M. Mulder, J. Papier, & R. Suart (Eds.), Handbook of Vocational Education and Training. Springer. Milana, M., & Mikulec, B.(2022). EU policy work under external shocks: Re-orienting the European agenda on adult learning under the COVID-19 pandemic. Paper presented at ECER 2022, 23-25 August, Yerevan. Milana, M., & Mikulec, B.(2023). Setting the new European agenda for adult learning 2021-2030: Between political mobilization and advocacy coalitions (unpublished, under review). Morris, P., Park, C., & Auld, E. (2022) Covid and the future of education: global agencies ‘building back better’. Compare 52(5): 691–711. Sabatier, P.A., & Weible, C.M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.

This paper discusses the European Semester as a particular form of policy instrumentation that has achieved a shift in both the intensity and nature of EU involvement in education policy. The literature on the Europeanisation of education explores the regulatory power of the EU most often through an analysis of policy discourses, the use of numbers as policy instruments, and the construction of framework programs (Alexiadou, 2016; Gornitzka, 2018; Grek, 2013), as well as through economic allocations (Souto-Otero, 2016). The main focus so far has been on the European Education Area and its predecessors, ET2010 and ET2020, and on the policy ideas and institutions that operationalize them (Alexiadou & Rambla 2022; Papanastasiou, 2020). Comparatively less attention is paid to policies organized through economic and employment governance that have direct effects on education (for exceptions see Eeva, 2021; Stevenson et al. 2017). Our presentation uses the concept of a ‘policy instrument’ as a device that has distinct technical as well as political and social properties that “organize specific social relations between the state and those it is addressed to” (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007:4). We view the Semester as a policy instrument that intends to shape the direction of policy and reform in member states and constitutes a particular ‘technology of governance’ employed in parallel to the more conventional policy making in the EU (Le Galès, 2016:510). This approach can shed light on EU decision making in the field of education policy, including the interactions between the different policy actors involved (ibid.). Following these ideas, our research has two key objectives. First, we examine the evolution of the Semester process as one of the instruments employed to steer education policy change, through (a) an analysis of interviews with European Commission and Council of the EU policy actors; and (b) an analysis of documentary material. Second, we analyse and compare the Country Specific Recommendations, issued as part of the Semester process, for the countries of Spain and Sweden over the period 2011-2021. Our research describes the logics of instrumentation embedded in the Semester, as well as the tensions and struggles that characterize the process of education policy making. In addition, our research sheds light into the conditions under which EU policy has consequences for education policy in Spain and Sweden.

Alexiadou, N. (2016). Responding to ‘crisis’: Education policy research in Europe. Research in Education 96(1): 23–30. Eeva, K. (2021). Governing through consensus? The European Semester, soft power and education governance in the EU. European Educational Research Journal, https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211055601 Gornitzka, Å. (2018). Organising Soft governance in hard times–The unlikely survival of the OMC in EU education policy. European Papers 3(1): 235-255. Grek S. (2013). Expert moves: International comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy 28(5): 695-709. Lascoumes P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Understanding public policy through its instruments – from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance 20: 1-21. Le Galès, P. (2016). Performance measurement as a policy instrument. Policy Studies 37(6): 508-520. Papanastasiou, N. (2020). The politics of generating best practice knowledge. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420962108 Souto-Otero, M. (2016). Policies that speak discourses? Neo-liberalism, discursive change and European education policy trajectories. In Lendvai, N., & Kenneth-Bainton, P. (Eds.) Handbook of European Social Policy. Edward Elgar. Stevenson H., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Milner, A.L., & Winchip, E. (2017). Education and Training Policy in the European Semester. Public Investment, public policy, social dialogue and privatisation patterns across Europe. ETUCE.

Over recent decades a distinctive European Union (EU) agenda has developed related to the complex issues of improving the attractiveness of the teaching profession and the quality of teacher education and professional development (Sorensen et al. 2021; Symeonidis, 2021). Since the EU’s jurisdiction is limited in education, EU governance relies on soft modes of enhancing cooperation that seeks to mobilise and encourage national and sub-national actors to experiment when addressing education policy issues (Graf & Marques, 2022; Héritier & Rhodes, 2011). In this respect, the recent policy initiative of the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies provides an intriguing case for policy analysis. A flagship initiative forming part of the current EU strategy to create a European Education Area, these teacher academies are associated with the Europeanisation of teacher education and training, an area of education which remains particularly embedded in the governance logics of member states (Menter, 2022). This paper has the objective to analyse and discuss the extent to which the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies represent a case of experimentalist governance (Eckert & Börzel, 2012; Sabel & Zeitlin, 2012), and the ways in which the policy initiative potentially contributes to Europeanisation (Lange & Alexiadou, 2007; Radaelli, 2008). Our entry point is based on the observations that the teacher academies involve the creation and financial support of networks of teacher education and training providers in order to modernise teacher training with a view to green and digital skills, inclusion, and expanding international mobility. Network partners are meant to work together in innovative ways, whereas the European Commission appears to represent a hub monitoring and distributing knowledge and experiences gained in the projects. Our analysis involves tracing the key ideas, actors and mechanisms driving the policy initiative, the roles of project partners, and the workings and outcomes of their interaction, including the roles and influence of the European Commission as a hub orchestrating the academy networks. We draw on comprehensive desk research, review of the academic literature on experimentalist governance, and an empirical inquiry of key policy documents and interviews with professionals with first-hand knowledge about the development of the policy initiative so far. The paper contributes to the empirical study of this recent EU policy initiative as well as the theoretical discussion around modes of experimentalist governance in a particular area of higher education and skills development that is deemed central for the well-being of education systems and societies overall.

Eckert, S., & Börzel, T.A. (2012). Experimentalist governance. An introduction. Regulation & Governance 6(3): 371–377. Graf, L., & Marques, M. (2022). Towards a European model of collective skill formation? Analysing the European Alliance for Apprenticeships. Journal of Education Policy, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2022.2097317 Héritier, A., & Rhodes, M. (2011). New Modes of Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2007). New Forms of European Union Governance in the Education Sector? A Preliminary Analysis of the Open Method of Coordination. European Educational Research Journal 6(4): 321–335. Menter, I. (2022). Teacher education research in the twenty-first century. In I. Menter(Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of teacher education research. Palgrave Macmillan. Radaelli, C.M. (2008). Europeanization, Policy Learning, and New Modes of Governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 10(3): 239–254. Sabel, C.F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. In D. Levi-Faur(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. Sorensen, T.B., Grimaldi, E., & Gajderowicz, T. (Eds. 2021). Rhetoric or game changer: Social dialogue and industrial relations in education midst EU governance and privatisation in Europe. Brussels: ETUCE. Symeonidis, V. (2021). Europeanisation in Teacher Education: A Comparative Case Study of Teacher Education Policies and Practices. Routledge.

The movement ‘toward the use of evidence in education in Europe’ (Pellegrini and Vivanet, 2021) is ubiquitous in England. Despite the ongoing and polarising debate about the value and meaning of evidence-based policy and practice, schools attempt to fulfil the expectations set out by policy makers who promote the use of scientific evidence (Wiseman et al., 2010:1). In doing so, school leaders often allocate a portion of their limited funds to evidence-based teaching interventions with many time-poor settings turning to commercially available packaged products. These are bought with the intention of making education more effective, or doing ‘what works’ in the classroom (Biesta, 2020:51), a concept made prevalent by the view that the medical-model can provide the solution to all of the problems in education (Biesta, 2010:492).  

As a result, to ‘affect a scientific legitimacy’, intervention products can often draw on neuroscience, cognitive science and/or psychology (Geake, 2009:1) as is the case with products such as Building Learning Power and the Thrive approach (Claxton, 2002; Thrive, 2021).   

In the past, intervention products such as these have been added to teacher pedagogy, only to find that the theories on which they rely have later been questioned. For example, it is argued that the mandated method of teaching phonics in early years and primary education ‘is not sufficiently underpinned by research evidence’ (Wyse & Bradbury, 2022:1). This situation is not uncommon. A further example is the wide-spread practice in the 2000s of tailoring teaching to support students’ individual learning styles, the basis of which is now considered to be a neuromyth and is widely discredited (Kirschner, 2016). While the teaching of learning styles has abated, the effects, mainly the misconception that one has a particular mode of learning, remain (Sumeraki and Kaminske, 2020).  It is important that we consider the possible effects that readily adopting evidence-based strategies such as these can have, not just on students and their learning but, on teachers and their teaching. 

This problem is especially topical as in recent years, the government in England has allocated more than a billion pounds ‘catch up funding’ for learning interventions in primary and secondary schools across the country (DfE,2020b).  The use of such interventions is expected to help address the many hours of lost teaching time experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic (DfE, 2020a; DfE,2020b). ​ Given the instability in which education has been operating, more knowledge is needed to better understand how these evidence-based products, in which our schools both trust and invest, come to be used.​ Understanding the processes through which learning science makes its way from the research into teaching practice could help us to understand the incentive for its use and, if deemed appropriate, implement it more effectively. 

Over the last two decades, a new reform agenda towards School Autonomy with Accountability (SAWA) has spread globally, transforming school governance around the world (Verger et al., 2019). The SAWA agenda aims to transfer decision-making from central levels to schools while establishing accountability mechanisms and common standards as monitoring instruments of school performance (Verger et al., 2019). Advocated by OECD (2011) and the World Bank (Arcia et al., 2011), both developed and developing countries have progressively adopted the main tenets of this reform. In this context, Colombia arises as one of the few Latin American countries that has transformed its system along the SAWA agenda. However, what differentiates Colombia's case from others is its piecemeal and incremental approach: the reform was progressively adopted over the last 20 years and throughout three different waves marked by three presidential administrations: under Álvaro Uribe (2002-2010), Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) and Iván Duque (2018-2022).

The study of policy diffusion has gained large scholarly attention across different disciplines, as globalization has accelerated the spread of global reforms (Wimmer, 2021). What puzzles scholars researching traveling reforms is why countries from different regions, with divergent institutional trajectories or inscribed in varying contexts seem to adopt similar policies (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Policy diffusion has been explained by different and sometimes overlapping mechanisms, such as competition among countries, coercion from international organizations, normative emulation of global scripts, or policy learning from ‘best practices’ (Dobbin et al., 2007). In particular international organizations have been central to diffusion studies in education, considered carriers of global templates (Ramirez, 2012), or been responsible for transformations due to aid conditionality (Hossain, 2022).

At the same time, policymaking has moved towards evidence-based regulation, which means showing that decisions are not purely politically driven but also evidence-based (Maroy, 2012). A growing body of literature has looked into the knowledge architecture behind policy reforms (Baek et al., 2020), as well as the role of international organizations as knowledge brokers for policy diffusion (Waldow & Steiner-Khamsi, 2019). Arguably, the choice of certain evidence and knowledge sources is indicative of important dimensions of the policy process, such as the problem-framing and selection of potential solutions (Haas, 1992), neglected by scholars who have focused on policy coalitions (Kingdon, 1984), actors' motivations, and interests (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003) or supranational coercion or emulation (Dobbin et al., 2007) when studying reforms adoption. Clearly, what sources are chosen from all available data and what actually counts as evidence and knowledge can uncover the ideological affiliation, sources of legitimacy, and policy preferences behind a policy reform adoption.

In this particular case, the first question I explore is what type of knowledge has Colombia used through the years to justify the adoption of SAWA? In other words, what has been, if any, the linkage between the different administrations when planning and implementing changes in education? Secondly, in the context of a global movement towards evidence-based policy, how has the use of knowledge changed during the last 20 years? To answer these questions, I aim to explore the knowledge sources used by Colombia’s policymakers over the years to justify and inform the reform adoption as well as how these sources have shaped the Colombian policy discourse around education. By studying the use of knowledge and the authorship of those sources, I intend to contribute to the understanding of a key dimension behind the policy diffusion process like the role of ‘reference societies’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2016) and ‘sources of legitimacy’ (Edwards et al., 2018), as well as their role in the context of global policy diffusion. often steered as key determinants of reform adoption.

Scientific research shows the necessity of implement educative reforms and practices based on scientific evidence (Slavin et al., 2021; European Commission, 2007). The challenge identified by Elmore (1996) decades ago, and other authors (Cohen-Vogel et al., 2015) on successful replication of larger educational scale projects remains understudied. Top-down approaches developed by most Public educative Administrations are achieving limited deep and long-lasting transformations specially by the lack of shift in ownership (Coburn, 2003). This means that the educational policy is feel as external, controlled by the public authorities, instead of an own transformation of practices that schools are able to sustain and spread.

This contribution advances knowledge to demonstrate that on one hand, to scale-up educational practices based on scientific evidence with social impact contribute to this shift of ownership and, on the other hand, shows the benefits of dialogic policy process implementation where this evidence is recreated in egalitarian dialogue with all the stakeholders.

The objective of the research was to understand the Portuguese case of implementation of educational policies co-created with the educational community based on the best scientific evidence with social impact. And the research question was to identify the improvements for students, families, trainers and teachers involved in this dialogic co-creation and implementation.

The paper presents the case of the Ministry of Education in Portugal that has promoted the implementation of dialogic policies (Álvarez et al., 2020) based on scientific research with social impact (Sordé et al., 2020). Meaning that it has been a sustained effort to stablish an egalitarian dialogue between decision makers, centres of professional teacher development, schools, families, and other beneficiaries of the policy and that this dialogue have been based on the scientific evidence that achieves the best results.

The Directorate General of Education has promoted since 2017 the implementation of Successful Educational Actions (SEAs) and the training of trainers in those actions. SEAs were identified through the INCLUD-ED research (FP6, 2006-2011), coordinated by CREA (Community of Research in Excellence for All), which analysed case studies and European education systems in which students with low SES were achieving the best educational and socio-emotional development outcomes. These actions, based on dialogic learning and educational participation of the community (Flecha, 2015) have already demonstrated a broad social impact (Morla-Folch et al., 2022), sustained over time and transferred to many different contexts.

This paper will present, on one hand, the dialogic methods used to co-construct the scale; It will explain how the constant and equal dialogue between the different stakeholders was established both, in the training of trainers and in the implementation of the schools, to recreate these SEAs in each of the contexts (Vieites et al., 2021). On the other hand, will present evidence of social impact (improvement) in the professional and personal development of the trainers and in the teachers, students, families and communities in which those SEAs were implemented. It is worth mentioning that the Ministry of Portugal chose to scale up these actions first in schools categorised as TEIP, which stands in Portuguese for Educational Territories of Priority Intervention. Despite the complexity of the territories and the great impact of the COVID pandemic, the results are very positive and may help other policy makers to reflect on the content and the form in which reforms are implemented.

The focus of this symposium is philanthropy in education, and it poses the question: what is education for? Through this prompt question, presentations will explore how philanthropy alters the provision of education in Australia and Zimbabwe, with questions raised concerning global flows of philanthropy. The discussant is Associate Professor Stewart Riddle, whose work examines the democratisation of schooling systems, increasing access and equity in education and how schooling can respond to critical social issues in complex contemporary times. The symposium raises questions about the increasing presence of philanthropy in education, and asks, how do philanthropic funding arrangements support education, and at what cost? Further, by introducing philanthropic funds into education and reducing government support, the question is raised about who, or what, education is for?

The first paper explores venture philanthropy in Australia, and how it unfolds in the context of public schooling in Australia and the UK, with reference to governance, policy and practice and the globalised nature of philanthropic funds. The second paper explores how Australian public school parents are operating as new philanthropists, solving the problem of inadequate state funding through private capital raising. The third paper explores the role of philanthropy in schooling in Zimbabwe and how tourism creates complex dynamics in learning environments for students in schools. These papers intersect in their examination of new forms of philanthropy in schooling, and the manner in which philanthropy is fundamentally shaping public schools and government policies.

These presentations address the rising and urgent issue of philanthropy in education. As philanthropic funding increases, whether through venture philanthropy or individual-small scale philanthropy, there is an urgent need to examine the cost and gains of entrepreneurial cultures inserted into public education. As part of this unfolding, consideration is made to the question of ‘what is education for’ and who public education serves, or will serve in the future.

This paper maps the rise of venture philanthropy in public education, exploring how policy networks mobilise high-level systemic reform and governance technologies. This is philanthrocapitalism, a fundamental shift for policy mobility and modes of redistribution. The paper focuses on a major venture philanthropic node, named Social Ventures Australia (SVA). SVA is the brainchild of the global multinational McKinsey and Company and is a useful example to map how venture philanthropy leverages resources, and in the process, fundamentally changes the shape, functionality and form of traditional government. In their lobbying and advocacy work to influence education policy, SVA successfully advocated for a number of intermediaries, including a national research evidence institute. The education research institute is modelled upon and funded by the Education Endowment Foundation from the United Kingdom. Thereby, the paper views policy networks through a lens of globalization, considering how globalization retains an ‘undeniably material form’ (Rizvi & Lingard 2010) in entrenching global interconnectedness and establishing both funding pipelines and market-based reform agendas. It seeks to show the global to the local, in how these reforms are nested within globalized networks, whilst impacting and mobilizing national education policy and public schools. Venture philanthropy and the way in which these networks achieve high-level systemic reform is under-researched in Australia. These networks stand as a critical lever of policy reform in public education. This paper will scrutinise and map the way these networks mobilise reform and function as an identifiable form of economic exchange.

Rizwi, F., Lingard, B., Rizwi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Education policy and the allocation of values. F. Rizwi, & B. Lingard, Globalizing education policy, 70-91.

In a globally austere policy context, state financing of public services has been positioned as perennially ‘in crisis’ and in need of private intervention. In fact, there is a general assumption – in education policy and practice – that philanthropic donations are a useful supplement to the public funding of schooling. While much research investigates the role of billionaire philanthropists and their influence in bringing about systemic changes to public school systems, this article focuses on the role of parents, and Parent and Citizen (P&C) associations in autonomous public schools. Through qualitative analysis of P&C interview participants I discuss how the role of P&Cs in Queensland has shifted from them being largely ad hoc community fundraisers to profitable business operators, particularly through the running of profitable canteens, Outside Hours School Care (OHSC), uniform shops and book shops. Through this analysis I argue that public school parents are now operating as new philanthropists, solving the problem of inadequate state funding through private capital raising. Echoing previous research, I note equity concerns here, including the stratification of the public school system and further, a concerning lack of transparency around the extent to which some public schools are being nourished by the deep coffers of successful P&Cs.

N/A

In Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe, a broken education system has led to schools relying on donors to support/provide fundamental resources. This donor support is sometimes sought by school leaders through funding provided from school tours, conducted as part of tour packages of southern Africa. Few studies have examined the implications of including a school tour in a mass tourism itinerary. This paper explores the philanthropic intervention into schooling using a case study of one school in Matabeleland North, a school that hosts school tours in exchange for small gifts and, sometimes substantial, financial donations. This paper reports on a three-month ethnographic study exploring the effect of the school tours. Data generated from the study included semi-structured interviews with teachers, students and tourism staff. Using a critical view of Development as a discursive framing for analysis, this paper reports on the art-based interviews with children. It argues that students experience the tourism in a manner that is repetitive, and at times, unproductive for learning. Given that one of the intended outcomes of school tours is a better learning environment for the students, the school tour may not be meeting its intended aim. The school tour represents an incursion of development discourse and capitalism into schooling. As philanthropy in schooling is increasing, and has been for the last few decades, it is of pivotal importance to examine the manner in which tourism in schools effects the day-to-day experiences of students and how dominant discourses around ‘development’ shape the interaction of tourism and schooling.

N/A

Diversity refers to normal human variances in terms of race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, dis/ability, religion, indigenous status, nationality, citizenship status, culture, refugee status and so on (Smith, 2011). What people experience in their lives, including the opportunities and challenges, are heavily influenced by their diverse markers or attributions. For example, minoritised ethnic or racial groups or people with dis/ability often experience lower educational and life outcomes compared to majority ethnic or racial groups or people without dis/ability respectively. However, such differential impacts are not due to differences among people, rather how diversity is understood and managed in societies (Bhowmik & Kennedy, 2022).

This symposium will examine how a selected number of societies, including Cameroon, Hong Kong and Scotland understand diversity, what challenges for educators and leaders are reportedly it poses, and how educators and leaders deal with those challenges. Particular focus will be given to diverse groups’ construction and negotiation of identities, belonging, acculturation, religions, experiences of marginalization and discrimination and their linkages to educational outcomes and wellbeing. Adopting an asset-informed approach that assumes diversity as a strength as opposed to deficiency (Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016), the symposium will report policies and practices that are found to be effective in managing classrooms with students from diverse backgrounds. The underlying theories such as labeling issues in dis/ability discourse (Essex and Macaskill, 2020), diversity mindset in inclusive leadership (Knippenberg and Ginkel, 2022), decoloniality (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018), and critical race theory in education (Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009) will be highlighted. The symposium will also shed light on educational and parenting practices of minoritised groups so as to better equip educators, leaders, researchers and other stakholders to meaningfully engage with minoritised students and their families.

All four papers will deal with diversity and related responses in their respective contexts. First paper will examine the gaps between policy and practices in relation to Additional Support Needs in Scottish education system. The second paper will look at how inclusive leadership capabilities are being developed in Cameroon by harnessing the power of continuous learning via professional learning community. The third paper will elucidate how critical literacies can be utilized to promote decoloniality by engaging students with diversity, inclusion and power related isssues in a teacher education programme at a Scottish university. The fourth paper will employ a critical race perspective to highlight the shortcomings of language dominating discourse in relation to minoritised students’ education in Hong Kong.

This 90-minute symposium comprises an opening session, four paper presentations, comments by the Discussant and question-answer session with the audience. A Chairperson will open the symposium to welcome the audience and explain the purpose, rationale and structure of the symposium. They will have 5 minutes for the opening session. It will be followed by four paper presentations focusing on three different jurisdictions. Each Paper Presenter will have 15 minutes. The Discussant will then take 15 minutes to highlight and critique some key points of each presented paper as well as their implications for policy, practice and future research. The symposium will close by a question-answer session with the audience for about 10 minutes. The Chair, Paper Presenters and the Discussant are all scholars working in three different parts of the world.

This presentation will consider the disjunction between Scottish education policy’s view of Additional Support Needs as a means of recognising and meeting needs and day-to-day school practice (Scottish Government, 2017). Drawing on examples of practice and key policy statements, it will consider how teachers mediate the tensions between policy and practice. Issues that will be drawn out include the mismatch between policy that is informed by a socio-ecological model of difference and the medicalised model that is used to level resources in school, and the fixed nature of assigned labels in contrast to the changing presentations of ‘disabilities’ through a child’s time in school (Essex and MacAskill, 2020). Responses to diversity in capacity will be analysed in terms of how they impact on a child’s experience of schooling and considers the multiple mechanisms whereby identifying a support need often acts as a key determinant of future failure. Finally, the presentation will set out the new version of the Framework for Inclusion which is intended to help teachers negotiate the gaps between policy in, and practice of, educational inclusion (Scottish Universities Inclusion Group, 2022).

Essex, J. and Macaskill, M. (2020). Modern Foreign Language Education for learners with Additional Support Needs in Scotland, Support for Learning, 35 (4), 440-453. Scottish Government. (2017). Code of Practice for Additional support for learning: statutory guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/supporting-childrens-learning-statutory-guidance-education-additional-support-learning-scotland Scottish Universities Inclusion Group (2022). National Framework for Inclusion (3rd edition) Available at: https://www.gtcs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/National-Framework-3rd-Edition-2022.docx

The growing attention for diversity and inclusive education (Erten and Savage, 2012; Messiou 2017), has witnessed a parallel interest in evidence-informed practices (Nelson and Campbell 2017) that are supported by ongoing professional learning to optimise team-based efforts (collaborations between teachers). Recent development in community-based education is seeking for wider forms of collaborations between student, teachers, school leaders and the wider community (Corson 1998; Knippenberg and Ginkel 2022). This shift from a centralized orientation of education to a more community-based orientation where community member’s knowledge and expertise are needed to inform the school’s core business of learning and teaching creates new opportunities and challenges for school principals, particularly on how they go about incorporating the voices of those who were once unsolicited. Inspired by the need for ongoing professional development for school principals in Cameroon (Lyonga, 2022), this paper draws on data from the Teach Connect LeadUP project, which anchors on the cultivation of professional learning communities (PLC) as a school-wide improvement strategy. Crafted to build leadership capacity, the project begins by exploring how school principals think about leadership, and their capacity in developing inclusive learning cultures using action research strategies to develop their epistemic cognition and capabilities for inclusive leadership. The project relies on the leader’s emic perspectives in creating conducive and inclusive learning environments where every student, staff and member of the school community feels included, empowered and safe to contribute towards achieving the collective goal of the school. I draw on the findings of the first reconnaissance phase of the project, leveraging on the reflections of principals and their understanding of inclusive leadership processes and the knowledge base and competences required for the development of a PLC in a resource-constraint context. Overall, the findings from all the phases of the project will cumulatively inform the design of an inclusive leadership framework that plots the ideological and theoretical considerations foregrounding the development of leadership capacity for inclusive learning system and communities

Corson., D. (1998). Community-based Education for Indigenous Cultures, Language Culture and Curriculum, 11(3), 238-249 Erten., O. and Savage., R., S. (2012). Moving forward in inclusive education research, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 221-233 Knippenberg., V. D. and Ginkel., V., P., W. (2022). A Diversity Mindset Perspective on Inclusive Leadership, Group and Organisation Management, 47(4), 779-797 Lyonga., N.A.N. (2022). Principals’ Leadership Needs for Effective Management of Secondary Schools in Meme and Fako Divisions of Cameroon. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 18(1), 35-48 Messiou., K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink?, International Journal of inclusive Education, 21(2), 146-159 Nelson., J. and Campbell., C. (2017). Evidence-informed practice in education: meanings and applications, Educational Research, 59(2), 127-135

In my exploration of critical literacies as a means to create the conditions for decolonial possibility with student teachers, I draw on the concepts of safe, brave, and contested spaces (Atiya et al., 2013). The discursive construction of these spaces across a professional graduate diploma in English education reveals how the student teachers and I consistently have to “name, critique, and challenge” (Johnson, 2022, p. 90) the entangled discourses of power that make the colonial matrix (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018), whilst also ensuring that these spaces are humanizing and contextually responsive to diversity. In this presentation, I offer insights into the design and management of these spaces across one teacher education programme as well as examples of the contested responses that have taken place as student teachers engage with issues of diversity, inclusion, and power.

Atiya, S., Davis, S. W., Green, K., Howley, E., Pollack, S., Roswell, B. S., Turenne, E., Werts, T. & Wilson, L. (2013). From safe space to brave space: Strategies for the anti-oppression classroom. In S. W. Davis & B. S. Roswell (Eds.) Turning teaching inside out: A pedagogy of transformation for community-based education. Palgrave Macmillan. P. 105-112. Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press. Johnson, L. L. (2022). Critical race English education: New visions, new possibilities. Routledge.

The policy discourse in Hong Kong concerning minoritised students’ education and well-being are heavily dominated by Chinese language issue where minoritised students are mostly seen from a deficit perspective. For example, minoritised students are officially referred as non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students indicating their lack of Chinese language skills. The policy makers may leverage from this labeling to limit their policy efforts only to Chinees language support, however, such a labeling itself constitutes the racialization of minoritized groups (Bhowmik & Gube, 2022). Despite the policy discourse highlighting language as the main barrier to successful educational outcomes, empirical research suggests that many other interrelated factors also contribute (Bhowmik & Kennedy, 2016). This paper will highlight the ways in which adoption of critical race theory (CRT) (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009) and related methodology (López, 2003; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) have helped to widen our understanding beyond language deficiency model. Such an undertaking uncovers an array of factors that racialize minoritised students of South Asian heritages and contribute to their unfavorable educational outcomes in a society characterized by 92% Chinese majority. Among others, teachers’ low expectations, segregating school system, unfavorable school policy, negative stereotypes, differential treatments and behaviors, and lack of cultural understanding are in effect. The paper will elucidate how these factors operate to racialize minoritised students and create a systemic barrier that inhibits their successful transition to post-secondary education and beyond. It will highlight the bold policy measures needed to alter the situation and ensure that diversity is truly valued and celebrated in this Asia’s world city. The paper will also discuss the issues and challenges of situating and doing CRT in a context that privileges Chinese and oppresses South Asians.

Bhowmik, M., & Gube, J. (2022). Anti-racist values and intercultural skills. In K. J. Kennedy, M. Pavlova, & J. C.-K. Lee (Eds.), Soft skills and hard values: Meeting education's 21st century challenges (pp. 133-148). London & New York: Routledge (Taylor and Francis). Bhowmik, M. K., & Kennedy, K.J. (2016). 'Out of-School' Ethnic Minority Young People in Hong Kong. Singapore: Springer. Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2010). Critical race theory. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 6, pp. 341-347). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97 (1), 47–68. López, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (1), 68–94. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02239761 . Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 23–44. Taylor, E., Gillborn, D. & Ladson-Billings, G. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in Education. New York: Routledge.

With direct relevance to the conference theme “The Value of Diversity in Education and Education Research”, this symposium considers the education of asylum-seekers and refugees with particular reference to race.

The UNHCR (2018) estimates that there are now more than 12,500,000 displaced children across the world. Young refugees have an entitlement to an ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ in their destination countries (United Nations, 2015), which has implications for national education systems (McIntyre and Neuhaus, 2021: 796).

Research has shown that although young refugees have the right to an education, the situation is very different in different European countries. While there has been a recent increase in research on education and asylum seekers and refugees, one of the aspects often overlooked in academic research is the racialised context of refugees and the raced nature of national education systems. Equally, when this context is mentioned, then only briefly rather than fully theorised (Chadderton and Edmonds, 2015; Wischmann, 2022). This is perhaps because refugees are often not explicitly recognised as a racialised group. However, scholars have demonstrated that they are actually constructed as non-white, whether or not they are white by skin tone (Garner, 2013), and should therefore be considered a racialised group.

‘Racialisation must be understood not exclusively in terms of categorising according to appearance and culture, but also as a more abstract process of attributing innate characteristics to all members of a given group. In the case of asylum-seekers in England, it is the group’s social status, rather than shared physical characteristics, that serves as the basis for racialisation’ (Garner, 2013:504).

Research has shown that European education systems are racially unequal, and reproduce disadvantage. There has been a focus on the outcomes and experiences of racialised minorities, the racialising function of education policy, the operation of white privilege, the Eurocentric nature of the curricula, the impact of colour-blind practices. However, barely any attention has been paid to the implications of this racialised educational context for asylum-seekers and refugees.

This symposium then, aims to fill a gap in research by offering a series of papers on education, refugees and race in three European countries: Germany, England and Austria. The papers collectively consider the arrangements for education for refugees in relation to the racialised context. We ask, how does this racialised context impact on education policy, practice, or the experiences of refugees themselves in education in these different national settings? How do the different national histories shape educational provision for refugees and asylum seekers? How do Eurocentric curricula shape the experiences of refugees? How does teacher education and professional development prepare teachers to work with refugees and asylum seekers?

Germany is one of the countries hosting the most refugees and asylum seekers worldwide (UNHCR, 2022). Many of them are minors and have the right to attend school immediately after their arrival (Züchner 2017). In the federal education system in Germany the models of educational integration of refugees differ (El Mafaalani et al. 2021). However, the fact that refugees and other newly arrived immigrant children and youth underachieve in compulsory schooling applies to all federal states (ibid.). To understand this, it is fruitful to reconstruct the historical discourse of refugees in education in Germany since World War II by analysing three dispositives of power (Foucault 2020), that frame educational policies: The first one is the invisibility of refugees in German society, including education, once the notion of a 'refugee crisis' disappears from the headlines (Ackermann 2004). The second is the German taboo of racism that prevents critical reflections on the racialisation of refugees. The third dispositive is what I call institutional irresponsibility within the education system that denies the needs the refugees systematically (Wischmann 2022). Data includes political documents such as strategy papers mainly taken from the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) (Siegling 2019), political statements from stakeholders, teacher organisations, as well as public discourse in media (e. g. Sueddeutsche Zeitung 2022). The corpus of data will be restricted to the years 2015 until today and analysed with critical discourse analysis (Blommaert & Bulcaen 2000; Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine 2017). For each of the three dispositives illustrative examples will be used point out the mechanisms of silencing refugees in education in Germany.

Ackermann, Volker (2004): Das Schweigen der Flüchtlingskinder: Psychische Folgen von Krieg, Flucht und Vertreibung bei den Deutschen nach 1945. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 30 (3), S. 434-464. Arribas-Ayllon, Michael; Walkerdine, Valerie (2017): Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, S. 110-123. Blommaert, Jan; Bulcaen, Chris (2000): Critical Discourse Analysis. In: Annual Review of Anthropology 29, S. 447-466. Online verfügbar unter El-Mafaalani, A., Jording, J., & Massumi, M. (2021). Bildung und Flucht. In Handbuch Bildungs-und Erziehungssoziologie (pp. 1-19). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Foucault, Michel (Hg.) (2020): Power. Essential works of Foucault, volume three. London: Penguin Classics (Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984, volume three). Siegling, Sybille (2019): Schulische Bildung von jungen Geflüchteten - ein Überblick. In: RdJB 67 (2), S. 151-160. DOI: 10.5771/0034-1312-2019-2-151. Sueddeutsche Zeitung (2022): https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bildung/schulen-kmk-praesidentin-rechnet-mit-400-000-ukrainischen-schuelern-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-220414-99-913267 UNHCR (2022): https://www.unhcr.org/germany.html Wischmann, A. (2022). Whiteness and Racism in Education. Implications for Young Refugees in Germany. In: Delić, A., Kourtis, I., Kytidou, O., Sarkodie-Gyan, S., Wagner, U., Zölch, J. (eds) Globale Zusammenhänge, lokale Deutungen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37356-6_7 Züchner, Ivo (2017): Beschulung von geflüchteten Kindern und Jugendlichen. In: Handbuch unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge. Frankfurt/Main: IGfH-Eigenverlag, 2017.

In this paper I explore the racialised context and implications of policies affecting the education of young refugees and asylum seekers in England. While previous research has examined both education policy for refugees, and race inequality in education in England, education policy for refugees and race is an under-researched area. I conduct a Critical Policy Analysis of education policy for refugees and draw on insights from both Critical Race Theory and the concept of racist nativism to theorise both the racialised context and racialised outcomes for refugees. The concept of racist nativism originates in the US and denotes the link between race and immigration status and the interaction between racism and nativism (Lippard, 2011). It describes the positioning of the native as white, and the non-native as raced. I focus on issues such as the absence of specific policy for refugees, the lack, or inadequacy of English language classes, the competitive nature of the education system, and the policy clash between young refugees’ right to education and the way in which wider refugee and asylum policies actually present a barrier to access to education. I argue that since 2010, education policy for refugees has not only been fuelled by discourses of racist nativism, but fuels these discourses as well by maintaining white, nativist norms, leading to the racialisation of refugees, producing educational disadvantage, and leading to a promotion of white supremacy.

Lippard, C. D. (2011). Racist Nativism in the 21st Century. Sociology Compass 5(7), 591–606.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a piece of ‘racism-critical’ research and discuss its impacts on teachers and teacher education as well as the development of curricula in Austria. Using the example of Styria, a region which is known for innovative educational initiatives, and the installation of the so-called Mobile Support Team (MUT), we want to show the interdependences between those initiatives, government policies, and professional development in education. MUT was pursued in 2017 as a first step, which aimed to quickly and unbureaucratically improve the training of educators in dealing with heterogeneity in view of the increase in refugee students (Chadderton & Wischmann, 2023). Our analyses of interviews with school leaders, stakeholders, group discussions with teachers and interpreters, and policy documents confirm what other research suggests (e.g., Mecheril 2018; Messerschmidt, 2020; Doğmuş, Kourabas, Rose, 2022; Zara, 2022): a fundamental de-thematization of racism, which is expressed in the fact that it is not addressed directly but is played down in its effectiveness using euphemistic terms in both the case initiatives and schools. In addition, the data shows that for the teachers we interviewed, diversity and ‘otherness’ is often conceived as a characteristic of students and parents, but that less thought is given to social hierarchies and the associated pedagogical scope for action. Finally, the paper poses the question how such initiatives, and the experience gained through these, can be sustainably incorporated into training and anti-racist practices (Thoma & Czejkowska, 2017). Because one thing has become clear: Despite the results of this research, teachers are highly committed to ‘racism-critical practices’, as highlighted by many school leaders. Teachers’ social commitment is also emphasized by their willingness to undertake further training especially on the subject of diversity and heterogeneity. However, in this regard the further training courses available are often criticized for not corresponding to the needs of the educators facing – as well as fighting – institutional racism and discrimination. Currently too much value is placed on imparting ›information‹ about the ›culture‹ and ›religion‹ of certain migrant and refugee groups. In addition much more differentiated offers are needed than the existing courses, which are primarily designed to be introductory.

Chadderton, C. Wischmann, A. (2023) Schlaglicht: Flucht und Geflüchtete in der EU. In: JBfP 2022, pp. 203–205. Doğmuş, A., Kourabas, V. ,Rose, N. (2022) Beredtes Schweigen über Rassismus. Be- und Entlastung von Lehrer*innen im Sprechen über Rassismus und das Potential von Rassismushinweisen. In: Ivanova-Chessex, O., Shure, S., Steinbach, A. (eds.) Lehrer*innenbildung (Re-)Visionen für die Migrationsgesellschaft. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa, pp. 186-185. Mecheril, P. (2018): Orders of belonging and education. In: Bachmann-Medick, Doris/Kugele, Jens (eds.): Migration. Changing Concepts, Critical Approaches. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 121-140. Messerschmidt, A. (2020) Fremd werden. Wien. Thoma, N., Czejkowska, A. (2017): Evaluationsforschungsstudie zur Erstanlauf- und Beratungsstelle Mobiles Unterstützungsteam Steiermark (MUT). Graz. ZARA (2022) Racism Report 2021. Institutional and Structural Racism. Analysis of racist attacks and structures in Austria.

The multilevel governance of education within the European Union allows Member States to design their own policies, despite some “harder soft governance” (Knodt & Schoenefeld, 2020) mechanisms such as comparative reports and, perhaps most importantly, Cohesion Policy’s conditionalities. Nonetheless, the European discourse combines the legacy of the Lisbon Strategy (2000), around competitiveness imperatives (Nóvoa, 2013), with social cohesion appeals. Besides the acknowledgment of rural/urban and native/immigrant asymmetries, the strategy is vague regarding the need to promote better cohesion. Furthermore, comparative reports (Education and Training Monitor) or the European Semester appear to frame the need to solve such asymmetries as solely important to the achievement of greater economic prosperity and competitiveness, disregarding democratic, citizenship, and even cultural goals.

Such vagueness is not far from the blurriness usually attributed to the policy narrative of cohesion (Artelaris & Mavrommatis, 2020) within the European strategy more broadly understood (Faludi, 2005; Medeiros, 2016). While some views on territorial cohesion seem to argue in favor of an approach that intends to create a block of equal and equally competitive territories, others prefer an outlook that underlines endogenous resources as value (Chamusca et al., 2022). Due to its vague appeals, educational documents and strategies do not support the clarification of this concept. Despite not daring to solve the conceptual ambiguity of the “cohesion discourse”, we argue that a look at the subnational governance of education in Portugal might clarify the dialogue between education policy and the pursuit of cohesion, especially through a diversity lens.

The decentralization process that has been carried out in Portugal has tried to empower subnational government units through the transfer of increasing competencies. Despite the many challenges (mainly financial), this process has allowed local governments and communities to have a louder voice within the formulation of education policies, thus trying to find local-based solutions to close problems and asymmetries.

Through discourse analysis, we intend to assess the presence and operationalization of territorial cohesion principles within the local governance of education in Portugal, inescapably bounded by a multilevel governance framework, thus coordinating European guidelines and national laws. Therefore, we pose the following question: How do municipalities translate the European discourse on territorial cohesion into education policies?

The preliminary hypotheses (H) rely mainly on our empirical experience within the design of local education policies and instruments combined with insights from the literature. Due to a closer knowledge and contact with local vulnerabilities, we believe that:

H1: Municipalities tend to articulate concerns with specific local asymmetries and to formulate place-based policies to solve them.

In equal measure, local authorities also have a greater knowledge of endogenous resources and assets. Hence, we posit that:

H2: Local entities tend to embrace a more positive understanding of territorial cohesion, which prefers to highlight territorial resources and diversity as an asset.

However, the influence of the European and transnational discourses on education might be unavoidable and the race towards competitiveness an inevitability:

H3: Despite believing in equity and cohesion goals, municipalities also understand such principles as instrumental to the pursuit of greater competitiveness and economic prosperity.

The research focused on the dialogue between education and territory has been worried about place-based learning (Gruenewald, 2003), spatial justice (Marques, Tufail, et al., 2021), or community role (Vester, 2008). On the other hand, the Europeanisation of education has been well-researched for the past two decades (Alexiadou, 2007; Dale, 2009; Nordin, 2014). However, the research on the hypothetical double Europeanisation of education policy and cohesion narratives has seldom been considered.

In this paper, we analyse education export in Finland and Sweden - two Nordic countries with diverging national policy approaches to education export, but where private edu-business actors thrive and look abroad to offer a (Nordic) ”helping hand” to education systems both in the Global North and South. Drawing on a range of empirical sources in both Finland and Sweden, i.e. interviews, policy documents and edu-business websites, we analyse education export rationales and justifications from the perspectives of policymakers and commercial stakeholders engaging in international trade in the Global Education Industry (GEI). Education export, briefly, includes the international selling of a range of education goods and services, such as teacher training and teaching materials, education technology, as well as consultancies in various forms (Schatz, 2016). For education export to be possible, some form of commodification of education needs to take place to enable cross-national exchange. A central point of departure for this paper is that such processes are far from neutral and entail the creation of subjectivities and associated power relations in the GEI (Parreira do Amaral et al., 2019; Verger et al., 2016).

In a previous study focusing on education export, we examined how the Nordic model in education is represented in policy documents on education export and nation branding in Finland and Sweden (Rönnberg & Candido, 2023). Now, we aim to analyse and critically discuss justifications and positionings of commercialisation of ‘Nordic’ education in the GEI by analysing education export in Finland and Sweden from the perspective of its stakeholders. We are guided by the following overall research question: To which extent and in what ways do policy- and commercial actors in Finland and Sweden make use of national and/or Nordic models in education export?

In this paper, we acknowledge the changing and borderless nature of the growing GEI as an important external context in which the global and national/local intersect (Verger et al., 2016; Parreira Do Amaral et al., 2019; Steiner-Khamsi, 2018; Ball, 2012). Immersed in business logic, education as an industry is intrinsically connected to other sectors and broader strategies. As a result, we also draw from perspectives on nation branding and welfare export, including the role of commercial actors in education and focusing on the corporate in the political economy of education — that is, the “actors, processes, networks, styles, and power relations related to businesses or the for-profit sector” (Moeller, 2020, p. 233; c.f. Andersen, 2020; Marklund, 2017). In the analysis, we turn to Marjanen, Strang, and Hilson (2021) and their rhetorical perspective as “a useful way of exploring the connections and interplay between foreign and domestic visions of Nordicness” (Marjanen et al., 2021, p. 19) to inform our study of policymakers and commercial stakeholders engaging in the GEI in Finland and Sweden. The literature defines the construction of the Nordic and the national as a reflexive process, “where self-images meet the eye of the Other in a mutually reinforcing way” (Andersson & Hilson, 2009, p. 222), whereas Nordic is complementary, rather than opposed, to the national. Nation branding (Fan, 2010), and also Nordic branding, is used as “something prescriptive or even aspirational” (Strang et al., 2021, p. 32), conferring status and reputation to both the exporter and the importer – thereby also contributing to hierarchical positionings and subjectification.

Neoliberal policies have invaded countries all over the world to make education systems more market-oriented and efficient (Ball, 2008; Forsey et al. 2008). This has also happened to the Nordic countries, in which education was earlier considered as an important part of welfare policies aimed at quality and levelling out social inequality by assuring wide provision and equal conditions of access (Blossing et al. 2014; Telhaug et al., 2006). However, since the 1990s, all the Nordic countries have, to varying degrees, adopted to neoliberal policies and introduced the so called, freedom of choice and competition as some of the main drivers for changing their school systems (Dovemark et al. 2018).

Despite similarities in the way the Nordic countries developed their school systems to support the welfare political agenda of providing education for all and ensuring equality of opportunities, the overall structure of their systems differ, especially at upper secondary school level. Thus, the upper secondary school systems are seen to differ along a spectrum from an integrated model, combining vocational and academic tracks in single institutions in Sweden to complete institutional separation of these tracks in Denmark. Such differences may connect to different practices of demos and nation-building histories (Raae, 2011).

As indicated, it also varies to what extent the Nordic countries have subjected to neoliberal policies and the way they have reformed their school systems. In Sweden, privatization and freedom of choice have caused a clear increase in inequality in relation to class, ethnicity, and geographical origin (Fjellman et al., 2018) in a sometimes, tough competition among upper secondary schools to attract students. Although the underlying education policies are similar in Denmark, where the ‘school voucher’ is named a ‘value-added grant system’, the situation is different. In both Sweden and Denmark, the challenges for upper secondary schools are partly related to the increased competition for students, partly connected to general polarization tendencies. This means that the school vouchers that follow the students put institutions under economic pressure (Lundahl et al., 2013).

Further consequences of this, is a clear increase in social inequalities and that the institutions are under pressure both politically and economically (Rasmussen & Dovemark, 2022). There is a political pressure on the one hand to get as many students as possible through upper secondary education and on the other hand, to assure an appropriate distribution between the vocational and the general educational tracks (Nevøy et al. 2014). There is an economic pressure for institutional survival to attract as many students as possible and this leads to structural challenges of providing upper secondary education in all areas of the country (Rasmussen & Lolle, 2021).

As a vehicle for understanding the workings of education policies of freedom of choice and more market-oriented education, Sweden and Denmark can serve as critical cases for comparison. We are interested in comparing the discourses of freedom of choice adopted in the legislation of upper secondary education, what consequences do they have to the provision of upper secondary education in a welfare perspective, asking as main question: What are the arguments, what rationales are at hand and what premises does the discourse on free choice rest on in different texts in Denmark and Sweden?

To answer this general question, we structure our analysis in the following three sub-questions,

- What is the legal basis for the freedom of choice discourses – what is emphasised?

- How is freedom of choice interpreted at administrative and school levels?

- In which ways are school structures assuring the provision of upper secondary education?

In Rethinking Comparison, Simmons and Smith (2021) argue that comparative methods are at the cross-roads of two main trends: a trend towards controlled comparative methods whose main focus consists in the improvement of causal inference - something that often involves taking the route of natural experiments; and an opposing trend towards deconstructing comparison, heavily indebted to postcolonial theory, which sees comparative methods as ‘old fashioned’ and intellectually impoverishing. To these trends, we add a third one consisting of hyper-globalist understandings of globalisation that are challenging cross-country analyses, arguing that the state has been hollowed-out as the main locus of policy-making.

The comparative analysis of education policies is not alien to these challenges and advances. Indeed, such dilemmas have given rise to passionate debates and inspired a number of research innovations and increasingly ambitious research designs. Comparative education policy studies have proven to be a dynamic research field that does not remain passive against the different external and internal challenges it faces. This symposium examines precisely how the field of comparative policy analysis has evolved in the last decade, and how education policy research can benefit from this evolution. The panel aims thus at stimulating reflection on the possibilities opened by the new comparative methods, tools and databases, and on the research questions posed by this changing environment and which merit further investigation. To do so, our panel revisits two recurring debates that have long centred efforts at (re)thinking comparative research, namely, what to compare and how to compare. In relation to the former - what to compare -, we witness how comparative analysis is increasingly open to a broader range of research units. Beyond conventional cross-country studies, comparative research can be conducted within countries, across regions, across time and even compare different kinds of units (Schaffer 2015).

In addition, the role of globalisation in policy formation has been conceptualised in a more sophisticated way. Increasingly, comparative analyses contemplate how different political scales are mutually constituted, how global policy models are being translated differently in different contexts and/or how the impact global forces fluctuates over the policy process. Such trends make the case for expanding the possibilities and perspectives for comparative inquiry. Overall, rather than taking them as a given, we are being encouraged to actively construct the objects of our comparative analyses (Barlett and Vavrus 2017). In a European context, where policy is no longer the exclusive parcel of nation states, and regions and cities play an increasingly prominent role as policy spaces, transcending the cross-country perspective is more necessary than ever.

In relation to how to compare, the old divides between quantitative and qualitative approaches are being left behind. Mixed-methods designs have indeed found their place within European research, and there is a growing appetite for methodological pluralism. Contrary to traditional conceptions, it is increasingly acknowledged that small-n studies can play a critical role in offering generalisable insights and that big-n studies can play an important role in theory building and identifying causal mechanisms. There is also growing recognition of the need for further disciplinary cross-fertilization and dialogue with other disciplines in the social sciences. The comparative analysis of education policy cannot remain insulated from the conceptual and theoretical innovations brought forward by political science, geography and policy sociology, among other.

This double-symposium will include papers that make an explicit effort to innovate in comparative analysis methods and forms of inquiry. It includes a selection of empirically rich studies of education policy covering different contexts and domains, including teacher policy, international large-scale assessments, the role of expertise, public-private partnerships, and accountability reforms.

The POLNET (Policy Knowledge and Lesson Drawing in Nordic School Reform in an Era of International Comparison) study started out as a Norwegian study that explored how policy knowledge was produced and used, respectively, in Norwegian school reform (Karseth, Sivesind, Steiner-Khamsi, 2022). In the political system of Norway (as well as in Sweden), the Norwegian Official Commissions have an advisory role vis-à-vis the line ministries. Given POLNET’s focus on evidence-based policy decisions, we compared the “evidence” referenced in Green Papers, which were produced by these advisory bodies, with the evidence referenced in the White Papers, issued the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Similar to Norway, the Swedish political system also has policy advisory bodies in place that review past school reforms and make recommendations to their respective line ministry. As a corollary, we were able to apply identical sampling strategies to the Swedish POLNET study: we compared the production, as well as the use of evidence, between Green and White Papers. The other three political systems in the POLNET study (Denmark, Finland, Iceland), however, have different “expert-seeking arrangements” (Baek, 2020) or evidence-production/utilization mechanisms in place. Unsurprisingly, the incommensurability issue was at center stage at each stage of the five-country study, ranging from the initial stage of data collection (selecting the functionally equivalent entity of the Norwegian and Swedish Official Commissions) to the final stage of interpreting the findings of the country case studies. Different from the research question that accompanied the POLNET study from the onset—whose knowledge is used as an authoritative source to establish evidence and subsequently to justify evidence-based policy decisions—this investigation digs into the question of where policy evidence is produced and used, respectively, in vastly different political systems. To complicate the narrative, it is indispensable to take into account multi-centric governance (Cairney, 2020) or network governance (Ball and Junemann, 2012), respectively, and acknowledge that ultimately the political fabric of evidence production/utilization matters. Investigating functional equivalence is only a starting point. What is equally important, from a system’s perspective, is how the various entities within an expertise-seeking arrangement (advisory committees, hearings, stakeholder reviews, commissioned reviews, etc.) relate to each and how they, taken together, differentiate and distance themselves from non-expert arrangements. As a result, the comparison of different political systems always becomes a matter of translation: identifying what the structures, mechanisms, and entities for evidence production/utilization mean in a given political context.

Baek, C. (2020). Knowledge utilization in education policymaking in the United States, South Korea, and Norway: A bibliometric network analysis. [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. University of Bristol and Policy Press. Cairney, P. (2019) Understanding public policy. London: Bloomsbury, 2nd edition. Karseth, B., Sivesind, K. and Steiner-Khamsi, G., eds (2022). Evidence and expertise in Nordic education policy. A comparative network analysis. New York: Palgrave. Open access: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-91959-7

In this presentation, we reflect critically on the research design underpinning the TeachersCareers project (2017-2022) in order to contribute to the discussion on the potentialities and limitations of comparative methods in the contemporary era of globalization of educational policies. Funded by the European Research Council, the project grapples with the structural and cultural environments shaping the employment regimes of the teaching profession in the context of accelerated globalization. The project addresses two critical questions: how is the teaching profession (re)institutionalized in a globalizing world? And, how does globalization affect central mechanisms for the profession, such as its training and professional development models, modes of recruitment, and labor markets and careers? Based on a multiscalar study combining multiple sources of data and methods, the project innovatively analyzes the reconfiguration of teachers’ careers in Europe, with a focus on joint evolutions and intersections of the European Union (EU) governance, and in the two contrasting systems of England and France. Drawing on sociological and historical new-institutionalisms, the research design is developed to make sense of ongoing interactions between trajectories of institutional developments at different levels (European, national, local) with implications for teacher professionalism. For this purpose, the research design combines analyses of policy processes and structuration drawing on the concept of field and types of fields (Zietsma et al, 2017) to analyze the emergence and structuration of the EU teacher policy field, the dynamics and interactions between EU and national policy and professional fields, and longitudinal analyses of institutional development and change at the national level in France and England to capture evolutions in the employment regime of teachers (Thelen, 2014). The analyses are thus longitudinal at both the national and European levels. In the project, the policy analyses are mainly based on document analyses and interviews with key stakeholders, while employment and labor market studies cover a broad range of methods (comparative quantitative analysis of professional and employment regimes based on TALIS 2013 and 2018 data, longitudinal workforce analyses at the national level, labor market analyses in local spaces such as Lyon and London, and qualitative analyses of individual teacher career pathways). In discussing the challenges associated with such a complex research design we argue for the need of methodogical pluralism, well-defined research interests, and strong theorisation of the globalisation concept (Dumay & Mangez, forthcoming), in comparative education research.

Thelen, K. (2014). Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D.M., and Hinings, C.R. (2017). Field or Fields? Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields. ANNALS, 11, 391–450.

Since it entered the comparative education research agenda decades ago, the privatisation of education provision has become a more complex phenomenon (Bellei & Orellana, 2014). Policies that fall under the umbrella Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly diverse and adopted with different objectives and through various instruments. In addition, such arrangements are found in an increasingly heterogeneous number of countries. For instance, public subsidies for private schools, frequently associated with countries of the Global North, are increasingly being considered in different countries of the Global South. However, as a consequence of the extensive evidence demonstrating the negative impact of education PPPs on equity, a debate has emerged in the past few years regarding the need of public regulation to counterbalance the educational inequalities associated with privatisation policies (Boeskens, 2016). Based on a systematic literature review, this paper aims to identify the different regulatory configurations of education PPPs and make sense of their recent evolution. The findings show how the policy objectives pursued with the adoption of education PPPs, as well as institutional factors and related path-dependencies, are crucial to comprehending the evolving configuration of regulatory frameworks. The research also identifies a cross-cutting trend to recalibrate existing regulatory frameworks in response to problematisation processes that brought to the fore the impact of private education on school segregation and social stratification between schools. In most cases, equity-oriented reforms are moving towards a command and control governance approach to the detriment of a market governance approach. New regulations tend to increase the role of the State in terms of educational planning, establishing norms and monitoring schools’ behaviour. The paper also reflects on three main challenges experienced during the research process, feeding into the current debate in comparative education policy studies. First, despite the global nature of education policies, such as privatisation and PPPs, cross-country comparability remains challenging due to the specific forms these policies take at the local level. Second, the increasing need for an interdisciplinary theoretical and analytical approach to capture the complexity of education policies poses a challenge to integrate these different perspectives consistently. In the case of privatisation, integration efforts are further complicated by ideological divides that continue to permeate the debate. Finally, while there is growing recognition of the multi-scalar nature of the privatisation phenomena, emerging regulatory trends point towards the need for a more systematic effort towards the categorisation and operationalisation of domestic drivers mediating in recontextualisation processes.

Bellei, C., & Orellana, V. (2014). What Does “Education Privatisation” Mean? Conceptual Discussion and Empirical Review of Latin American Cases. (ESP Working Paper Series, No. 62.) The Privatisation in Education Research Initiative (PERI). Boeskens, L. (2016). Regulating publicly funded private schools: A literature review on equity and effectiveness (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 147). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Performance-based accountability (PBA) has become a central instrument of school assessment, monitoring and improvement in European countries. This instrument has a great potential of shaping school organizational decisions and educational practices. PBA has cognitive and normative influence by framing policy representations, problematization processes and power games (Maroy and Pons, 2019). Educational literature documents how PBA has occasionally generated the conditions for improving students’ learning outcomes, but also numerous undesired side-effects, including the intensification of test preparation, curriculum narrowing and the adoption of non-inclusive practices in the classroom (Cohen-Vogel, 2011). Research also brings to the fore that teachers and other school actors creatively interpret and respond to PBA, generating inconsistencies between regulatory expectations and the context of practice (Hardy 2014). Our study starts from the theoretical assumption that the way teachers respond to policy prerogatives such as PBA is contingent on how these actors make sense of performance pressures within their broader social and institutional environments (Jabbar & Creed, 2020). Educational systems vary importantly in the way they regulate the teaching profession and in the procedures they put in place to monitor and guarantee quality education. We argue that these institutional features inevitably mediate the way PBA is enacted. At a more local level, we argue that the position that schools occupy in their local education markets is also crucial to uncover how teachers negotiate and process external pressures, and with what outcomes in terms of organization and educational practices. Part of the REFORMED project (www.reformedproject.eu), this research is unique in its attempt to unravel, from a cross-national perspective, the social mechanisms and conditions favouring different school reactions to PBA. The research follows a sequential mixed-methods design approach which integrates two different empirical stages. The first stage relies on an international database that includes questionnaire data administered to teachers (n = 3403) and school leaders (n= 625) from randomly sampled urban schools in Norway, Chile and Spain - countries that enact different PBA policies which vary in their density (thicker and thinner), and direction (vertical and horizontal). In the second research stage, we conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers (n=76) and school leaders (n=73) in the three countries.

Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011). “Staffing to the test” are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 33(4), 483-505. Hardy, I. (2014). A logic of appropriation: Enacting national testing (NAPLAN) in Australia. Journal of education policy, 29(1), 1-18. Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (2019). Accountability policies in education. A Comparative and Multilevel Analysis in France and Quebec. Cham: Springer.

In Rethinking Comparison, Simmons and Smith (2021) argue that comparative methods are at the cross-roads of two main trends: a trend towards controlled comparative methods whose main focus consists in the improvement of causal inference - something that often involves taking the route of natural experiments; and an opposing trend towards deconstructing comparison, heavily indebted to postcolonial theory, which sees comparative methods as ‘old fashioned’ and intellectually impoverishing. To these trends, we add a third one consisting of hyper-globalist understandings of globalisation that are challenging cross-country analyses, arguing that the state has been hollowed-out as the main locus of policy-making.

The comparative analysis of education policies is not alien to these challenges and advances. Indeed, such dilemmas have given rise to passionate debates and inspired a number of research innovations and increasingly ambitious research designs. Comparative education policy studies have proven to be a dynamic research field that does not remain passive against the different external and internal challenges it faces. This symposium examines precisely how the field of comparative policy analysis has evolved in the last decade, and how education policy research can benefit from this evolution. The panel aims thus at stimulating reflection on the possibilities opened by the new comparative methods, tools and databases, and on the research questions posed by this changing environment and which merit further investigation. To do so, our panel revisits two recurring debates that have long centred efforts at (re)thinking comparative research, namely, what to compare and how to compare. In relation to the former - what to compare -, we witness how comparative analysis is increasingly open to a broader range of research units. Beyond conventional cross-country studies, comparative research can be conducted within countries, across regions, across time and even compare different kinds of units (Schaffer 2015).

In addition, the role of globalisation in policy formation has been conceptualised in a more sophisticated way. Increasingly, comparative analyses contemplate how different political scales are mutually constituted, how global policy models are being translated differently in different contexts and/or how the impact global forces fluctuates over the policy process. Such trends make the case for expanding the possibilities and perspectives for comparative inquiry. Overall, rather than taking them as a given, we are being encouraged to actively construct the objects of our comparative analyses (Barlett and Vavrus 2017). In a European context, where policy is no longer the exclusive parcel of nation states, and regions and cities play an increasingly prominent role as policy spaces, transcending the cross-country perspective is more necessary than ever.

In relation to how to compare, the old divides between quantitative and qualitative approaches are being left behind. Mixed-methods designs have indeed found their place within European research, and there is a growing appetite for methodological pluralism.. Contrary to traditional conceptions, it is increasingly acknowledged that small-n studies can play a critical role in offering generalisable insights and that big-n studies can play an important role in theory building and identifying causal mechanisms. There is also growing recognition of the need for further disciplinary cross-fertilization and dialogue with other disciplines in the social sciences. The comparative analysis of education policy cannot remain insulated from the conceptual and theoretical innovations brought forward by political science, geography and policy sociology, among other.

This double-symposium will include papers that make an explicit effort to innovate in comparative analysis methods and forms of inquiry. It includes a selection of empirically rich studies of education policy covering different contexts and domains, including teacher policy, international large-scale assessments, the role of expertise, public-private partnerships, and accountability reforms.

New forms of teacher recruitment and training have emerged that seek to radically reform educational systems in Europe and beyond (Dumay & Burn, 2022; Nesje, 2021; Tatto & Menter, 2022; Schneider & Abs, 2021). Programmes associated with the Teach For All network serve as one example, and now exist in more than 60 countries, from Slovakia to Spain to Sweden (see Thomas et al., 2021). Despite discursive depictions of accelerating and uncomplicated expansion (Lefebvre et al., 2022), their global proliferation has only been possible because of considerable policy changes in various jurisdictions, due in part to TFAll’s consistent role in advancing and benefiting from heterarchical forms of governance (Olmedo et al., 2013, Thomas & Xu, 2022). With this as a backdrop, this paper examines the varied ways in which Teach For All affiliates have engaged in effecting policy change, both to facilitate their entrée into new policy environments and, later, to further alter them. It analyses cases from across the Teach For All literature and draws on empirical data in the form of interviews, policy documents, and digital ethnography to first provide a comparative analysis of the forms of policy change that may be necessary for alternative programmes to enter new jurisdictions, such as reforming teacher certification and licensure policies. Second, the paper explores the means through which Teach For All organisations have sought to effect change prior to and after their emergence, drawing on examples from specific (sub)national contexts. The paper then offers a typology of policy movements and strategies utilised by Teach For All, including working within, beyond, and between existing structures. The paper concludes by raising critical questions about the future of global teacher education policy as well as the methodological challenges involved in studying its shifts, particularly as advanced by closed networks working across amorphous and dynamic policy spaces.

Dumay, X., & Burn, K. (Eds.). (2022). The status of the teaching profession: Interactions between historical and new forms of segmentation. Taylor & Francis. Lefebvre, E.E., Pradhan, S., & Thomas, M.A.M. (2022). The discursive utility of the global, local, and national: Teach For All in Africa. Comparative Education Review, 66(4), 620-642. Nesje, K. (2021). The origin and adaptation of Teach First Norway. In Examining Teach For All (pp. 63-78). Routledge. Olmedo, A., Bailey, P.L., & Ball, S.J. (2013). To infinity and beyond…: Heterarchical governance, the Teach for All network in Europe and the making of profits and minds. European Educational Research Journal, 12(4), 492-512. Schneider, S., & Abs, H.J. (2021). Professional duties and support for Teach For All fellows as reported by school principals: A case study of two European countries. In Examining Teach For All (pp. 221-242). Routledge. Tatto, M.T., & Menter, I. (2022). Institutional and pedagogical consequences of neoliberal globalization in teacher education. In Emergent Trends in Comparative Education (pp. 195-216). Rowman & Littlefield. Thomas, M.A.M., Rauschenberger, E., & Crawford-Garrett, K. (Eds.). (2021). Examining Teach For All. Routledge. Thomas, M.A.M., & Xu, R.-H. (2022). The emergence and policy (mis)alignment of Teach For Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 1-24.

How references to other education systems are constructed and employed in education policy-making has long been an important topic of educational research (see Waldow & Steiner-Khamsi, 2019). Among other things, they serve to situate education in one’s own country in relation to its environment. However, references to “elsewhere” are not only made to individual “reference societies”, i.e. individual nation states, but also to whole geographic regions (e.g. “Asia”) or clusters of countries that are perceived to be united by a characteristic trait (e.g. “the developing countries”). Also, individual reference societies often are perceived as being embedded in and representative of wider contexts. In this paper, we will take a closer look at points of reference functioning in a similar way to individual reference societies, but comprising larger units than individual countries. We term these “transnational reference clusters”. The paper combines a “borrowing and lending”-perspective with a comparative approach. It studies how transnational reference clusters were being constructed and used in the media discourse on education policy-making in Germany and mainland China in the wake of PISA between 2000 – 2020 (see also Ning, 2023). We will focus specifically on two transnational reference regions which play an important role both in the Chinese and the German media discourse and of which Germany and Mainland China are parts of, respectively: “Western industrialised countries” and “Asia”. The rise of large-scale assessments has had consequences for how education systems situate themselves in relation to others and particularly in relation to a non-egalitarian world order. Both Germany and China were challenged by PISA in how they made sense of their position in this order, since both experienced “PISA-shocks”, although in diametrically different ways: German observers were shocked by the fact that the results of their country were much lower than anticipated, while many Chinese observers were surprised by the positive results obtained by participating Chinese regions and cities (especially Shanghai). The comparison enables us to see more clearly the specific ways in which these shocks were processed in the two cases and how this processing was connected to long-standing perceptions of the world order shaped by colonialism: the German discourse reflects a process of othering “Asia” aimed at reinforcing the discursive superiority of “Western” education. Chinese media adopt parts of the ‘Western-centred’ stereotyping of ‘Asian’ education while at the same time attempting to legitimise the superiority of China’s own education system over others.

Ning, H. (2023). Der Mediendiskurs zu Referenzgesellschaften und PISA: Ein Vergleich zwischen Deutschland und Festlandchina im Rahmen des Projektionsansatzes unter Berücksichtigung der postkolonialen Perspektive. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Waldow, F., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2019). Understanding PISA's attractiveness: Critical analyses in comparative policy studies. London: Bloomsbury.

In order to make policy planning and global monitoring of national developments “evidence-based” (Karseth et al., 2022), state authorities voluntarily apply international standards for the sake of improving their own practices (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017). By tracing how regulative, normative and cognitive orientations of reform trajectories evolve, the present study aims at better understanding of how education policy-making unfolds under the influence of major international policy brokers. In particular, we have compared topologies and examined semantical shifts by the creation and recreation of discourses. IN the Norwegian part of the POLNET-study (Policy Knowledge and Lesson Drawing in Nordic School Reform in an Era of International Comparison), we applied computed text-mining procedures to a large corpus of official documents. This corpus consists of 503 full-text white and green papers published or referenced by the Ministry of Education Norway between 1990 and 2020. In our analysis, we mapped bibliometric reference networks, detected word associations that form topologies and clarified discursive shifts by examining time-space relations (Sivesind et al., 2022). The results show that a new topology on constitutional norms, democracy, the freedom of expression, and human dignity appeared in the 2000s. Moreover, compared to the 1990s, semantic shifts in reform policy during the 2000s reflected a more departmentalized discourse on school reform. Political discourses and conceptualizations of reform during the 2000s reflect an increased differentiation that reflects how state authorities regulate their education system by law. At the same time, word associations and associated discourses for different realms of school reform policy and higher education policy, reflect externalization processes and an increased interest toward cognitive-scientific rationalities of international large-scale studies and evaluations with normative undertones. It is somewhat surprising that that there is an increased attention towards national and international regulations and standards simultaneously. Nonetheless, we consider these trajectories as an outcome of the ways national policy makers and international experts receive and translate ideas and standards, and the ways narratives and discourses resonate within particular contexts.

Karseth, B., Sivesind, K., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2022). Evidence and Expertise in Nordic Education Policy. A Comparative Network Analysis. Palgrave McMillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-91959-7 Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-into the age of austerity. Oxford university press. Sivesind, K., Tiplic, D., & Johnsen, L. (2022). Surveying Policy Discourses across Time and Space: Internationalization of Knowledge Providers and Nordic Narrative. I D. Tröhler, B. Hörmann, S. Tveit & I. Bostad (Red.), The Nordic Education Model in Context: Historical Developments and Current Renegotiations. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003218180-21

Drawing on a network ethnography, this paper presents a mapping and an analysis of the actors which develop International Large-Scale Assessments (i.e. PISA, TIMSS) for the OECD and IEA. ILSA contractors emerged from a small, informal IEA network where capitals were accumulated and then used to stabilize the current network of contractors. In seeking to understand the rationales of ILSA contractors to carry out ILSA contracts, the paper drew on a key CE theory, policy borrowing and lending theory. Despite it traditionally making sense of state actors, the theory did prove useful in understanding non-state actors but suffered from ‘educationalism’. To visualise this network, ILSA contractor differences (i.e. size and tasks of each contractor) had to be done away with and commensurability had to be imposed. Imposing categories on the actors (i.e. public/private) was problematic. Comparing differences between IEA and OECD ILSA contracting put the emphasis on IOs rather than the contractors. Mapping and analysing this global network through comparison appeared to create more problems than it provided analytical insights. Questions arose such as: When is network ethnography a comparative education methodology? How can the study of a global network be comparative? Comparative Education (CE) assumes some kind of comparison. Historically, comparisons were made between and amongst educational systems (Bereday 1964; Bray et al. 2007). The main CE theories seek to understand how global theories travel and are adopted; how contexts shape the way policies are translated; how educational systems converge and diverge (Philips & Schweisfurth 2014). But what does CE offer when what is being studied does away with context (i.e. ILSAs treat context as noise) and the unit of analysis is a single global network? How can we understand market logics in education without the contribution of theories that explain business behaviour? Ultimately, this paper is an invitation to discuss the opportunities and limitations of CE methods and theories when studying a global network and business dynamics in education.

Bereday, George (1964) Sir Michael Sadler's "Study of Foreign Systems of Education." Comparative Education Review 7(3): 307-314. Bray, Mark, Adamson, Brian & Mason, Mark (eds) (2007) Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (Vol. 19). New York: Springer. Philips, David & Schweisfurth, M. (2014). Comparative and international education: an introduction to theory, method, and practice (2nd ed). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

The question of uncertain and open future has been characterized the government of modern societies. Attempts to secure valued life from unhoped futures and steer human action towards desired ones has been called anticipation (Adams, Murphy & Clarke 2009; Anderson 2010; Robertson 2022). In politics, anticipatory action tend to articulate a horizon of expectations based on hypothetical possibilities that might include calculation of risks, forecasting and narration of alternative futures (Adams et al. 2009; Anderson 2010; Robertson 2022). In this research, I explore how anticipation of educational futures works through articulation of ideological fantasies.

Despite seemingly vast possibilities of a contingent future, certain discourses and ideas have kept a strong hold in education policies – they have been sticky (Ahmed 2004). In political economy of higher education anticipatory political futures have been largely relied on the sociotechnic imaginaries of knowledge-based economy (KBE), promoted by international organizations such as OECD and European Union (Robertson 2005; Hunter 2013). Despite of several critiques (e.g. Lauder et. al. 2012; Jessop 2017) the discourses of knowledge economy have remained hegemonic in international (Hunter, 2013; Robertson 2022) and Finnish national (Poutanen et al. 2022) policy actors’ agenda. What could explain the stickiness of economic social imaginaries? How to approach the appeal and longetivity of capitalist order, or in this case, the force of knowledge-based economy in reproduction of higher education policy?

As many theorists have pointed, the construction of desiring subject is essential for the ethos or the spirit of capitalism (Boltanski & Chiapello 2005; MacGowan 2016). However, research related to governance of futures or political economy of higher education is usually focused on the socio-semiotic analysis. While policy scholars have increasingly called attention to the affective elements of policies and how we are moved by them (e.g. Zembylas 2020; Lähdesmäki et al 2020; Sellar & Zipin 2019), the role of desire and inertia of social order have remained less explored in policy studies (Anderson & Holloway 2020; however Clarke 2019; Saari 2021).

I follow political theorists who have approached the inertia of social and political phenomena and stressed the meaning of desire and mobilisation of passions, affects and emotions in political articulation and justification (Mouffe, 1993; Laclau 2004). From this perspective, the construction of effective economic and national imaginaries requires construction of ideological fantasy frames (Stavrakakis 2007; Glynos 2011) that arouse emotions, mobilise individual and collective passions, and call for action. In other words, anticipatory fantasy tries to get a grip of subjects’ desire and usher one further into identification with the objects it has emphasised (Glynos 2001; Stavrakakis 2007).

In this research I provide an empirical case study of anticipatory policy rhetoric. I will focus on the Finnish higher education policy reform 2017–2019 called “Vision development 2030” by Sipilä Government. The research questions are following:

1. What kind of ideological fantasies were constructed during policy-making of vision development 2017–2019?
2. In which ways the depicted fantasies aim to engage with subject’s desire?
3. What role do fantasies play in the policy-making practices?

What makes this case interesting is the concurrent rhetoric of austerity-ridden politics and anticipatory ideological fantasy: while the one hand advanced major economic cuts in higher education sector (which lead to redundancies of employment), the other depicted beatific illustrations of significant growth of resources of higher education sector and harmonious working life in its’ institutions. Thus political rhetoric of double binding – semiotic and affective play of crisis and salvation, austerity and prosperity, horrific and beatific fantasy– is noticeably evident. As such, Sipilä Government’s vision development provides intriquing case study of a construction of collective imaginary of the educational future.

This paper applies multi-level approach to analyze the role of higher education systems in socio-economic development with a focus on post-Soviet countries and with a special emphasis on the potential for transformative impact on HEI on societal development through the formation of students agency (various types of students entrepreneurship and project-based activities, action-research, voluntarism etc.). We analyze supra-national initiatives, national policies, leading universities’ practices, and the actual characteristics of selected education programs in these universities.

We aim to reveal principally new models of policy-making that are being launched aimed at more direct impact on national socio-economic development through students agency. This shift reflects the novel global and national realities, which imply critical insufficiency of the contribution by higher education systems to socio-economic development - a problem also discussed as “global productivity paradox” but having strong national specificity.

New institutionalism theory provides the conceptual grounds for the paper, It suggests that, to some extent, all post-soviet countries (even the least democratic and open from the point of view of the objective quality of institutional environment) may promote transformative impact of education, including higher education, on the national policy level (Meyer, 2010). This can happen not only because of the presumed efficiency of mass individual agency in these contexts, but also as a response to the globally transmitted “progressive” cultural patterns associated with “World society” (meyer, 2010). to be more precise, new institutionalist argument is that education promotes being proactive, innovative, entrepreneurial as a morally positive phenomenon (linked to the broader themes like “progress”). As shown in literature, the collapse of the USSR was one of the major factors in shaping the culturally legitimate global “World society” with Eastern Europe joining the West in celebrating democracy and capitalism, which stimulated education expansion (Schofer & Meyer, 2005). From this perspective, one may expect that national policies as well as formal conditions in the leading universities and characteristics of the educational programs devoted to development of individual agency (for instance, in the form of entrepreneurship training) will be to a certain degree similar in all the post-soviet countries. however, the actual practices in concrete universities and programs may vary significantly, not always reflecting the “global standard” in the same way, though referring to the latter in explicit or latent forms.

In the last decade, an upsurge in new nationalisms and geopolitical shifts has amplified Eurosceptic sentiment and challenged the values of European integration. These transformations within the political sphere in which universities operate exert growing pressure on the openness of higher education and research. The (re)nationalization of higher education and politicization of research increasingly influence university politics, including autonomy and governance, academic freedom, open science and international engagement. Universities find themselves entangled in contrasting visions of Europe: between a vision of deeper political integration and openness and one where European nation-states (re)gain power as the locus of political sovereignty or where protectionist regionalism and security politics challenge open exchange with communities outside the EU.

When researching European higher education, the Maastricht Treaty can be seen as an ideological turning point (Mudde, 2007). By launching the European Single Market, the Treaty tightened the European integration process: a process that in many ways conditioned the development of European universities in subsequent decades. On the one hand, the Treaty prompted extensive higher education reforms, leading to the establishment of the European Higher Education Area in 2010, rooted in the need for mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates to support the free movement of persons and services. On the other hand, the Treaty became a breeding ground for new nationalisms opposing the European integration project and its strengthening of federal Europe (Brøgger, 2022). While the domain of higher education was not immune to this opposition, research into European higher education has centred on the sector’s extensive Europeanization and globalization, in part to remedy years of methodological nationalism in education research, and lack of attention to the politics of scale (Brøgger, 2019; Dale, 2009; Huisman, 2009; Lawn & Grek, 2012). The conceptions of scale – the global, the European, the regional, and the national – are often taken for granted. However, they are not merely pre-existing sites (Clarke, 2019; Papanastasiou, 2019). Rather, they seem to depend on and be embedded in social and political practices as well as scientific and academic practices. Therefore, the focus on the global scale, in particular, has to a certain degree come at the expense of scholarship (re)linking higher education and research to regional and national scales investigating recent shifts in the geopolitical landscape, the impact of nationalisms, national specificity and differences across various contexts (Robertson, 2018).

Against this backdrop and taking inspiration in an affirmative critique of the politics of scaling in education policy studies, this paper discusses how to move beyond the binary of methodological nationalism (Shahjahan & Kezar, 2013), where policies are treated as national phenomena enacted by nation-states and attached to a particular place and polity, and methodological globalism, where the emphasis is on global factors affecting national policymaking (Brøgger & Moscovitz, 2022; Clarke, 2019; Takayama & Lingard, 2021).

The paper draws inspiration from the idea of an affirmative critique that does not begin with a plea for a revolution, but, by ‘staying with the trouble’ (Foucault, 1997; Haraway, 2016), plants the seed for change. Affirming and encouraging something in that which it criticizes (Raffnsøe et al.,), affirmative critique does not condemn or distance itself from the criticized; rather, it commits itself to an ethics of engagement and entails self-transformation (Staunæs & Brøgger, 2020).

The aim of this paper is to analyze the changes in European educational research through the way in which they are observed from within its disciplinary field. Educational research, in the European context, has been transformed in the last decades. In the analysis of this process of change three major forces have been identified. In this way, one of these forces is related to the European policy strategy of constructing the European Research Area (ERA) (Hoveid, Keiner & Seddon, 2014). A second force concerns how European educational research should be steered (Smeyers & Depaepe, 2016). And a third force is linked to a vision for European educational research, according to which it should follow a path identified in other sciences (namely, the natural and medical sciences) that value the production of evidence (Zapp, Powell & Marques, 2018).

This paper aims to deepen the knowledge about the process of transformation of the European educational research, through the understanding of how the field of educational research has been considering it. Thus, I aim to identify and analyze the changes perceived in educational research, in the European context, in the last two decades from the observation of the scientific field of education (Keiner, 2010), taking as object the articles published by the European Educational Research Journal (EERJ), between 2002 and 2020. This entry by the scientific journal is based on the notion that specialized publications constitute a communicative space where research in education reflects on itself and assigns itself a meaning (Schriewer & Keiner, 1992). Indeed, scientific publications play a significant role in the construction of the field of educational research, by selecting which themes are discussed and how they are analyzed.

The study draws on Luhmann’s thematization theory (Luhmann, 2000) to analyze the role of the scientific publications in selecting specific themes as the focus of their productions and its effects on the construction of the scientific field of educational research in the European context. Thematizing a topic means attributing relevance to it, emphasizing its centrality and its significance in relation to the flow of unthematized information (Luhmann, 2000). Thematization is described as the process of defining, establishing and publicly recognizing the major themes in order to reduce complexity (Saperas, 1987).

In this paper, I intend to answer to the following question: How does EERJ thematize educational research in the European context?

Midwifery training in Germany will be fully academized by 2023. This means it will only be offered at universities and initially in the form of bachelor's degree programs. According to the German federal government, the foundation for this was laid by EU Directive 2005/36/EC after amendment by Directive 2013/55/EU, which stipulates uniform minimum standards in midwifery training in all countries of the European Union and the European Economic Area in order to make automatic recognition of professional qualifications between these countries possible (cf. Deutscher Bundestag, 2018, p. 9).

The overarching goal is to highlight the influence of EU legal norms on the design of training structures of the member states. The relevance is illustrated by the fact that both the import of promising policy programs in the Western states (cf. Schneider & Janning, 2006, p. 220) and the indirect influence of the EU on policy areas of the member states that are actually protected by sovereignty have increased (cf. Bohlinger, 2014, p. 18f.). In order to be able to understand to what extent this applies to vocational education and training, the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC with regard to midwifery training is presented as an exemplary case.

Furthermore, it is the aim of the paper to consider the motives for the academization of the midwifery profession, as the German government attributes the change from technical colleges to universities to Directive 2005/36/EC, although its wording does not call for academization (cf. Deutscher Bundestag, 2018, p. 9). It is therefore obvious that beyond the formal requirements of the Directive, there are influences and motives that require a full academization of midwifery training.

In order to be able to determine the influence of the EU Directive more sensitively, the study is conducted on an international comparative basis between the countries of Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Deriving from the preceding implications, the research question for the present study arises: To what extent has the EU Directive 2005/36/EC led to an academization of midwifery education in DACH-region?

In order to address this question, the study examines whether and to what extent the predefined midwifery training structures specified by the EU Directive have been integrated into national vocational training systems. For this purpose, the scope and effectiveness of the EU Directive will be determined by means of vertical comparison and by taking into account the national-historical developments in midwifery education and training.

The theoretical framework for this study is organizational neo-institutionalism. Based on the aim of investigating the influence of the EU Directive 2005/36/EC on the national structures of midwifery education and training, the addressed countries or the respective national regulatory structures of midwifery education and training such as professional laws, represent the organizations. These are under the influence of the EU or, in the context of this study, the EU Directive 2005/36/EC, so that the Directive itself represents an institution.

The leading research hypothesis is that the transported myth of higher-quality academic education as well as the formal requirements of the EU Directive 2005/36/EC will be adopted by the addressed countries for legitimization and that a fully academic midwifery education will emerge even if this represents a major difference from previous developments and extensive system changes have to be implemented for this purpose. This would go hand in hand with the premise that, in addition to the formal requirements, other motives, ideas or development trends of the EU would also be transported to the states, which would lead subliminally to an academization of midwifery training. This would speak for an indirect control of the EU or the Directive 2005/36/EC with regard to the (professional) educational structures.

Internationalisation-at-home (IaH) is one of the key dimensions of comprehensive internationalisation processes in higher education (Hudzik 2011). Driven by globalisation influences on higher education, IaH is valued by universities for its assumed contribution to high quality learning contexts, increase of students’ intercultural and international competences, and the formation of global citizens (Dagen and Fink-Hafner 2019; Hudzik 2011). It refers to the ‘purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions’ into the curricula and experiences of students during their studies (Beelen and Jones 2015:76), and as such, is increasingly embedded in the narratives of universities and faculties across Europe and beyond.

Sweden has provided a very active policy context for investing in internationalization, and for the development of internationalization strategies (Alexiadou & Rönnberg; SOU, 2018:3). A recently conducted inquiry urged the government to adopt a more systematic approach towards policies and practices on internationalisation (SOU 2018:3; 2018:78). It suggests, among others, that ‘All students who earn university degrees have developed their international understanding or intercultural competence’ (SOU 2018:3), and thus, connects the wider internationalisation debates to university curricula. Universities mediate internationalisation policies and enact strategies to serve their missions, and institutional objectives, given their history, size and location (Alexiadou and Rönnberg 2022). In addition, the different academic and disciplinary organisations of natural and social science faculties frame the engagement with internationalisation differently (Knight, 2011; Kwiek, 2020; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005).

In our presentation we focus on ‘internationalisation at home’ (IaH) conceptions and experiences of students in two large Swedish Universities.

Theoretically we view the disciplinary perspectives as key in the ways in which IaH is organized and practiced (Iosava, L., Roxå, 2019; Leask & Bridge, 2013). Disciplines, as ways of organizing and defining knowledge domains (Becher and Trowler, 2001; Klein, 1990), academic practices and socialization of students (Biglan, 1973; Trowler et al., 2014), shape learning and teaching cultures, as well as the attitudes of teachers, researchers and students towards teaching practices, education values, and philosophies (Neumann, 2001; Sawir, 2011). Internationalisation of the student experience through the curriculum and teaching and learning practices, will have different meanings across the disciplines, and the professions they correspond to (Leask & Bridge, 2013). Following Becher’s (1989) and Biglan’s (1973) classifications of disciplines into ‘hard pure/applied’ and ‘soft pure/applied’ we study the ways in which ‘home students’ in the Natural and Social Sciences in two Swedish universities position themselves towards internationalization and their universities’ internationalization policies.

In particular we address the following research questions (a) How do students from different disciplinary contexts experience internationalization in their studies? (b) what are the subject specific narratives that define their position? and, (c) what do students view as the disciplinary and institutional facilitators and obstacles in integrating internationalization in their studies?

The transnational movement of ideas and practices in education is well documented (Junemann, Ball and Santori, 2018). Policy scholarship has addressed the influence of supranational agencies, non-state advocacy networks, edu-businesses and social venture philanthropy on global education policy and practice (Savage et al., 2021). Attention has focused on corporate school reform (charter schools, free schools and academy chains), teacher education and the school curriculum (Ball, 2012; Olmedo, 2013; Hogan 2016; Rowe, 2023). In contrast, the mediation of transnational professional learning networks is under-researched.

This presentation uses the tools of network ethnography to follow a professional learning network that markets the ‘laboratory school’ (Dewey, 1907) as a traded support service for schools. The aim of the study is to trace, position and better understand how the lab school concept is disembedded, ‘re-contextualised’ (Schweisfurth and Elliot, 2019) and re-embedded in diverse settings in an emerging global market for school improvement services. The research extends earlier work on cross-national attraction (Clapham and Vickers, 2018), outsourcing (Sperka, 2020) and the commercialisation of education services (Hogan and Thompson, 2017, Lingard et al., 2017).

The research is guided by the following questions: What motivates network entry, maintenance and departure (intentions)? How are knowledge and practices mobilised within the network? And relatedly, what knowledge and practices are displaced or extended by lab school networking activity?

The study draws on the theoretical resources of relational sociology and policy ethnography to consider ‘mobilities’, ‘moorings’ and knowledge flows in a loosely coupled dynamic network (Ball, 2016). The methodological approach combines the reach of social network analysis and depth of ethnography to follow network activity over time (temporal), and between settings (institutional) and contexts (national/regional). The analysis attends to the spaces, exchanges and artefacts that provide opportunities for translation and ‘mutations’ (Junemann, Ball and Santori, 2018, p.607).

Educational innovation has been considered for decades the keystone for leading the adaptation of education systems to 21st century societies and economies (Greany, 2016; Hallgarten & Beresford, 2015; Hargreaves, 2003). It has been the answer to diverse school systems and societies needs such as providing training to guarantee countries economic competitiveness; diversifying the standardized model of schooling characteristic of bureaucratic educational systems; bringing teaching-learning processes near to traditionally excluded populations or improving students’ academic performance (Lubienski, 2009). Both as a mean to achieve other goals such as school effectiveness or students’ performance improvement or as an end in itself, innovation has become a large-scale reform (Fullan, 2009; Glazer & Peurach, 2013; Sotiriou et al., 2016), that has been closely connected with school autonomy and accountability policies, becoming a global movement (Greany, 2022; Lubienski, 2009).

The key role assigned to innovation within the global education agenda has been supported and promoted by the OECD, which has announced “the innovation imperative” (2005). The use of innovation as an imperative displays the mechanisms of governing through concepts (Mausethagen, 2013); understanding innovation as an imperative serves for structuring educational policies according to the rationale of continuous change, shaping schools as units of constant improvement (Peurach, 2015) and placing its main goal on a concept of students’ performance shaped by marketized understandings of education and educational systems. That use of governing concepts allows a process of framing in which a particular meaning is built (Lakoff, 2006), selecting a specific definition of a problem as well as its solution.

Despite the widespread of educational systems reform policies that have promoted innovation, research on its adoption and effects in the context of national educational systems is scarce and poor. Although some research has explored the impact of educational systems reforms on school innovation (Greany 2022, 2016; Lubienski, 2009), most of the literature on school change is produced from within the discursive framework of innovation with the goal of supporting the development and adoption of changes (Fullan, 2017; Hargreaves, 2003), but without carrying out a deep analysis of the innovation imperative discourse and its policy adoption and schools implementation.

In that context, the present paper seeks to identify the adoption of the innovation imperative within the Spanish education system, the meaning that the concept adopts and the rationale that its use helps to build. To that end, an analysis of the main national educational laws approved since the 90s is carried out, in order to identify the increased presence of the term and the frame from which it is defined.

Contemporary education policymaking, especially the one revolving around education technology, is no longer confined within national borders but expands to new policy channels, which challenges the traditional notions of education governance. In recent years, computer programming has been introduced into school curricula in several national education systems across the world making it a key issue on the education policy agenda. In March 2017, the Swedish Government announced their decision to introduce programming as a mandatory teaching element as of the first grade of primary school. This study traces the policy networks and processes that contributed to the introduction of computer programming into the Swedish curriculum and its promotion in schools. The primary focus lies on the actors and actions that brought about this change, nationally and internationally.

In many countries, the public school is increasingly intertwined with the market that give rise to a struggle over the values that underlie education. Quasi-marketisation of public education blurs the distinction between public and private and bring about a competition of egalitarian values and market values. To explore conflicting values in education and the market, this paper takes the Swedish case of quasi-marketisation as an example. The introduction of a voucher as part of the Swedish school choice system in 1991/1992, contributed to both competition, price-setting in education and the establishment of for-profit educational firms (Lundahl et al, 2013). Today, a few large educational firms dominate the upper secondary school-market in Sweden and they recently adopt an expansion strategy to export their schools internationally (Rönnberg et al, 2022). AcadeMedia, the example in our study, is among the largest educational firms that export education.
Privatisation in public education are societally contested (Ball, 2012). A recent national survey in Sweden, the majority of Swedes believe that for-profit schools should be banned (Lindblad et al, 2021). Despite that, the parliamentary finance committee voted against a proposal in 2018 of limiting profit-making in the welfare sector (Finance committee report, 2017/2018) and large corporations' share of newly started schools is growing. Furthermore, 30 percent of pupils chose independent upper-secondary schools, which is a sector dominated by large educational corporations (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2022).
Marketizations of formerly non-marketized areas generate tensions between antagonistic values in business and education. In contrast to market values and conventions, egalitarian education is based on moral values and norms and this contradiction prompts contests, compromises, and justifications over the issue of worth in a context of the school market. Through the behavior of actors in markets and the use of practices, conventions arise within the system. When actors encounter criticisms or competing justifications for the market’s products, they use tests and justifications to determine what is valuable and by which measure (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006).
The aim of this study is to examine through which discourses and coordinative devices educational firms gain and maintain legitimacy within the arrangement of the Swedish education system. The empirical example is the large educational firm AcadeMedia. We interpret and analyse AcadeMedia’s annual reports that contain disclosed information, mandatory by law and descriptions of the firm's viewpoints and actions concerning crucial educational matters. Annual reports communicate fulfillment of societal and business expectations and in that sense, they can be regarded as devices of control of legitimacy.
We pose the questions: Which conventions does AcadeMedia mobilise to justify its actions in the education system? Which discourses and devices does the firm mobilise to manage and influence education policy?
Focus in the analysis is on the rationalisation the firm uses for their actions through which they manage the arrangement of the education system and influence the decision making of educational policy. The theoretical approach is inspired by the French pragmatic sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot (2006) and their theoretical framework of plural ‘orders of worth’ in different worlds of reality. Boltanski and Thévenot offer a model for analyzing different ways of combining competing orders of worth to justify actions in the education system. An analysis of actions demonstrates the gathering of devices and discursive resources and show how compromises are situated in specific arrangements of the educational system.

School buildings all over the world have countless designs, resulting from collaborations among experts in many different disciplines. The school building endures for many years as teachers and students come and go. Schools may also reside in buildings that were constructed for other purposes, and the physical learning environment may find its place in former museums, factories or offices. The school’s physical learning environment can seemingly take any shape anywhere. The aim of this study is to explore how physical learning environments emerge in teaching and learning practices within schools built with different standardised design concepts.

With decentralised governance for school buildings in Norway, local governments are responsible for meeting the Education Act’s requirements for school buildings, which states, ‘Schools must be planned, built, arranged and run in such a way that consideration is given to the safety, health, well-being and learning of the students’ (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 1998).

Except for general regulations on the necessity of school libraries and universal design, the central educational authorities have established no regulations or guidelines regarding the purposes of how design and functionality are connected. Local governments must translate the Education Act into design considerations, leading to diversity in school design in Norway. Recent studies have indicated that teachers adapt to and are happy about the usefulness of the school design, independent of the school consisting of classrooms or open learning spaces (Elfmark, 2022; Frøyen, 2018). Research into school design has often focused on its possible effects on student performance, teaching and well-being. However, the relationship between design and practice is crucial to the production of a building that can be and is used effectively (Daniels et al., 2019). From the ANT perspective, I want to explore how people and things appear in heterogeneous relationships which contribute to the emergence of physical learning environments.

The following research questions guide this article:

RQ1: What relations emerge between the built environment, the teachers and other actors?

RQ2: How do the physical learning environments emerge in the relations between the built environment, the teachers and other actors?

The conceptual framework must consider that the actors in this study speak with neither movements nor human voices. As a member of the posthumanist family, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) blurs the distinction between humans and non-humans and sees actors as effects of relationships and networks in a world that is constantly changing (Callon, 2001; Law, 2009). Walls, furniture, students, books and teachers do not appear as constant categories with specific characteristics. In fact, März et al. (2017) wondered, “How can the artefact as actor speak with authority, demand changes in practice or effectively alter existing practices or routines or establish new ones?” (p. 443). ANT supposes that there is no clear distinction between social phenomena and material forces that assemble and reassemble (Fenwick, 2015), highlighting how people and things are simultaneously actors and networks. Thus, ANT is useful in exploring how material practices and arrangements are necessary to establish governing and action. The ANT approach is not about giving artefacts human status but rather investigating and understanding relations to what is not us (Asdal, 2011). This paper aims to explore how the physical learning environments emerge in the interrelation between different building designs, teachers’ agency and other actors. I chose a comparative approach to investigate schools within a Norwegian educational context.

In Europe there are many new schools to be built. In Sweden, for instance, 1000 new schools are to be built between year 2020 – 2025, which is a substantial amount in relation to the size of Sweden. As a response to this need of new school buildings, there are policies emerging. One example is the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (SNBHP), who published guidance by presenting a digital collection of seven built schools (Boverket, 2021).

School building can be many things. For example, a school building is a place that children and students go to every day to socialize. A school building can thus be thought of as a social space. A school building is also a place for knowledge production and different teaching and learning activities. From this perspective, a school building is a space for teaching and learning. Several educational researchers (see for example Biesta, 2015; Dewey, 1938/1997, Englund, 1987; Popkewitz, 2007) have shown that a school is also a place that shapes the coming generation, and a school building can thus be thought of as a space for societal change. All in all, school building must be understood as educational policy that operate in different ways.

The aim with the paper is to acknowledge school building policy and discuss the consequences for what is possible to change (and not) through school building policy. Two research questions have been formulated: 1) What is the policy of school building aiming to solve? 2) What educational spaces are constituted in the policy, with at specific focus on (i) the social, (ii) teaching and learning and (iii) societal change.

Research on school building show a close connections between pedagogical change and school buildings (Alerby et al, 2006; Björklid, 2010; Bjurström, 2003; Blackmore et al. 2011, Grannäs & Stavem, 2021; Krupinska, 2022). One major shift of change is a so called a ‘teacher-centred egg-crate classroom’ to that of a student-centred learning environment (Fisher, 2007). The reasons for the shift is, according to Bjurström (2003), a separated perspective on educational activities to a more integrated perspective. Another connection between pedagogical change and school buildings, is the use of a new vocabulary in educational policy. Wood (2020), for instance, points out that by labelling a space a ‘learning environment’ rather than a classroom, the perception of the room changes. The perception of a space is not always the same even if similar words are used, such as the words “variation” or “flexibility” (Rönnlund, Bergström & Tieva, 2021). Thus, what words that are used to describe an educational space becomes important to acknowledge but also how the words or ideas materialise perceptions of what one can do in a specific educational practice.

When paying attention to school buildings and pedagogy, school culture, or what Williams (1958/1963) defined as “selective traditions” is also relevant to acknowledge (Gislason, 2010). A selective tradition, according to Williams (1958), points to the process by which we select from the legacy of the past to explain, support and justify actions in the present. Therefore, a new school building will never operate on its own as a neutral space but is always connected to its past. Thus, when examining the school building policy, it becomes relevant to explore what selective traditions that are (re)produced in the policy, in our case with a focus on the social, in teaching and learning, and as societal change.

Homework has traditionally been, and still is, a common practice in Swedish and Norwegian schools (Karlsson et al, 2019; Rogde et al, 2019; Westlund, 2004), serving as one of the key links between home and school (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Karlsson et al., 2019). Nevertheless, this practice is currently not regulated on a national level and is not even mentioned in curricula in neither Norway nor Sweden. Instead, every school, or even every teacher, has its own policy regarding homework.

The absence of national regulatory frameworks on homework may have to do with uncertainty about its effect on students’ learning (Skolverket, 2014). While some researchers argue that homework has a positive effect on achievement (Cooper et al, 2006), others have questioned that conclusion. For example, Hattie’s (2012, p.13) meta-analysis of factors that reinforce academic achievement indicates "...that homework has a much more positive effect for high-achieving secondary school students, but low or even negative effect on younger children". Furthermore, research shows that homework can also widen social segregation as it tends to favour students from families with high economic, social, and education capital (Nilsen & Bergem, 2016; Rønning 2011).

Yet, according to recent amendment proposals in both Sweden and Norway, state regulation of homework, or at least regarding homework support in schools, is likely to change. For example, from 2010, Norwegian municipalities were imposed by law to offer homework support to students from grades 1-4 and from 2014 this was extended to grades 1-10. A proposal for a new Norwegian education law suggests giving schools the option of mandating school assignments outside of school hours (homework) (Høringsnotat, 2021). Similarly, the Swedish Education Act, amended in 2022, stipulates that schools are obliged to offer students in grades 4-9, who wish extra help with their schoolwork, teaching time outside of regular school hours (SFS 2010:800). Moreover, after the latest parliamentary elections and the power shift in Sweden, proposals have been made to make extra school hours and vacation school mandatory for students and that the latter should be offered in lower grades than at present (proposition 2022/23:1; Tidöavtalet 2022).

In this paper we will situate the developments outlined above in historical and contemporary perspectives. By tracing how and why these law amendments came about, we want to explore what knowledges, assumptions and beliefs are embedded in them. Or put differently, if extra school hours and mandatory homework support is a solution, what problem is it intended to solve?

To address this question, we draw on Foucault’s notion of problematisation, by which he meant a “set of discursive or nondiscursive practices” (Foucault, 1988, pp. 456) through which previously unproblematic things, conducts, phenomena, and processes become a problem (Foucault, 2001, p. 171). Crucial for Foucault is an understanding of problematisation as a creative, rather than a strategic, process (Foucault, 2001, pp. 172–173) in that it initiates new ways of taking care of things and requires (new) techniques and solutions to be developed in order to govern them. For that, it is necessary to create a story about the “true” cause of the problem – a “diagnosis” – which entails a particular solution (Bacchi, 2009). Furthermore, this paper elaborates on the wider implications of these problematisations and the solutions they have produced.