Conference Agenda

[SESSION 2]The core of investigation in this double symposium is how national school policy reforms in a number of key European countries and regions are framed in transnational collaborations that meet with national particularities and contestations. The symposium presents results from a collaborative book project (Krejsler & Moos, 2023 forthcoming).

The symposium explores school policy developments in a number of different countries and regions to represent the diversity of Europe within a comparative framework applied to all presentations. It takes point of departure in the fact that European countries in their school and education policies have been increasingly aligning with each other, mostly via transnational collaborations, the OECD and EU. Even the IEA has been instrumental to motivate alignments by means of influential surveys, knowledge production and methodological development (Hultqvist, Lindblad, & Popkewitz, 2018; Krejsler, 2020; Lawn & Grek, 2012; Meyer & Benavot, 2013).

This alignment in terms of common standards, social technologies, qualification frameworks and so forth have aimed at facilitating mobility of students, workers, business and so forth as well as fostering a European identity among citizens from Europe’s patchwork of small and medium-size countries, representing a patchwork of different languages, cultures and societal contexts (Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002; Popkewitz, 2012). This symposium explores and maps processes of de-contextualization, when policymakers broker consensus in transnational agencies, up against the ensuing processes of re-contextualization when this de-contextualized consensus has to be re-contextualized in widely differing national contexts; here standards, frameworks and social technologies have to be adapted and digested to forms that make sense in relation to what is politically and educationally possible in each and every of these different contexts.

Unsurprisingly, however, these processes of policy transfer, exchange and mutual inspiration are equally rife with national contestation as transnational norms meet with national traditions. The presentations in this symposium thus explore and map the diversity of contestations that transnational policy also produces when it meets particular national contexts, ranging from progressive reform pedagogy and Bildung resistance to positivist and economistic approaches to education over increasing focus upon ‘national values’ to recent outright nationalist resentment to transnational and multilateral encroachment upon national sovereignty (Blossing, Imsen, & Moos, 2016; Hörner, Döbert, Reuter, & von Kopp, 2015; Krejsler & Moos, 2021; Rizvi, Lingard, & Rinne, 2022).

Equally problematic – and possibly even more opaque - is the national uptake of transnational school and educational policy is the ‘intermediary’ of issues like digitalization and commercialization by means of which policy passes as it is transformed into organization and practice.

In our approach we thus see the interplays of transnational and national school policy reforms as the intended and unintended strategies and effects of widely differing contexts for making policy for schools, i.e. reflecting what is politically and educationally possible within the national contexts, framed by its particularities: This includes attention to increased focus upon ‘national values’, immigration, populism, and so forth (Rizvi et al, 2022) as well as the framing effects on transnational and national school policies by particular approaches to adopting global challenges like digitalization and increasing commercialization (e.g. big data, algorithmization and platformization) (Appadurai, 2006).

The papers in this double symposium draw on critical education policy theory, governance and governmentality theory. Empirically they draw on analyses of transnational and national education policy documents as well as national education debates and existing studies on policy reform.

Cases stories with analyses of school policy reform from Denmark, England, Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Chech Rep., Croatia are the material this is built on. We find similarities and differences in how national government produce policies and reforms. Our setup is being very much in line with Bartlett & Vavrus (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017), who argue that cases used in comparisons should attend simultaneously to macro, meso, and micro dimensions. We do not see these dimensions as bounded, and thus setting fixed borders between levels, often preferring to see things slide from one level to other fields in ultracomplex contexts. In taking this perspective, we recognize that influences often slide unnoticed into the minds and practices of agents, remaining hidden and the strategically important question here is whether this creates more homogenized school systems across Europe over time, or whether national recontextualization and contestation make a difference which is sufficient to maintain different trajectories in school policies across Europe (Ball & Junemann, 2012). One sign of sliding occurs when authorities shift their form of governance from the regulations and frameworks of hard governance towards the use of soft governance, which often means adapting to suit national particularities, as shown in the ten country case chapters (Moos, 2019). The analyses show a two-sided sliding of agency in Europe: one is the transformation of decisions from state-level towards regional, municipal, and institutional levels – in the contemporary transnational discourse named ‘the move to autonomy’ (Lingard, 2000). The other involves a transformation of influence from classroom and school levels towards meta-state level, transnational level – named competence and performance and outcomes technologies (Krejsler & Moos, 2021). In short, we have also registered similarities within regions, most clearly in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans, where economy is in the forefront in all nation case-analyses. To some degree there are similarities in centralist state-construction in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans, founded in the communist eras, and in the relatively – and different - close relation to transnational, government-relations, new public management (NPM), in the Northwestern Europe, founded in the very close relations between the nations here (Normand, Moos, Min, & Tulowitzki, 2021).

*Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policypress. *Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative Case Studies: An Innovative Approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1), 5-7. doi:doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929 *Krejsler, J. B., & Moos, L. (Eds.). (2021). What Works in Nordic School Policies? mapping Approches to Evidence, Social Technologies and Transnational Influences. Dordrecht: Springer. *Lingard, B. (2000). It is and It isn't: Vernacular Globalization, Educationa. Policy, and Restructuring. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education. Critical perspetives. New York: Routledge. *Moos, L. (Ed.) (2019). Glidninger - ‘Usynlige forandringer inden for pædagogik og uddannelser [Slidings - ‘Invisible’ transformations in education]. http://edu.au.dk/fileadmin/edu/Udgivelser/E-boeger/Ebog_-_Glidninger.pdf. *Normand, R., Moos, L., Min, L., & Tulowitzki, P. (Eds.). (2021). The Culture and Social Foundation of Educational Leadership. Dordrecht: Springer.

Drawing on a combination of insights on the singular nature of policymaking in the context of federal states (Savage 2016) and a policy trajectories approach (Maroy, Pons and Dupuy 2017), we examine the evolution of educational reform in a setting characterized by complex multi-scalar interactions, namely the Catalan region within decentralized Spain. Based on interview data and a thorough document analysis, we focus primarily on understanding how and to what extent Catalonia has been able to use its margin of political and administrative autonomy within the Spanish (quasi)federal state to promote a unique approach to educational policy. Results are presented according to four different reform stages: (1) Structural reforms after the democracy restoration (1980s and 1990s); (2) Experimenting with New Public Management (NPM) ideas in education (2000s); (3) The conservative modernization agenda (2010-2015); and (4) Governing schools through educational innovation (2016-ongoing). The policy trajectory we describe shows how educational reform has been shaped by the constant interaction between the Catalan and Spanish governments in a context where the division of competences and responsibilities is ambiguous and in constant renegotiation. Nonetheless, scalar tensions do not necessarily result in diverging policy approaches on school governance. Policies on school autonomy, evaluation, leadership, and competence-based education have been encouraged by the Spanish legislative framework since the 1990s. The singularity of the Catalan education policy lies more on the fact that it has pioneered the instrumentation of such policy ideas embedded in a broader NPM approach to education, rather than in offering an alternative policy orientation within the Spanish education context.

Maroy, C., Pons, X., & Dupuy, C. (2017). Vernacular globalisations: neo-statist accountability policies in France and Quebec education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1239841 Savage, G. C. (2016). Who’s steering the ship? National curriculum reform and the re-shaping of Australian federalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 833–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1202452

The presentation takes point of departure in the fact that Poland in its school and education policies has been increasingly aligning with the other European countries, mostly via transnational collaborations, the OECD and EU. The paper focuses on the analyses of transnational and national education policy documents as well as national education debates and existing studies on policy reform in Poland in the light of the decentralisation of education. The historical complexities and diversity of Polish school policy and reforms are central to the analyses presented. After a series of radical reforms made in the 1990s, a decade of more evolutionary changes followed – a decade in which more emphasis was placed on developing practical solutions within the existing frameworks of the system rather than root and branch revision. But the deeper reform tendencies have not gone away. Consequently, within current school policy and reforms we find tensions relating to changing normative imperatives of political power as these reflect in the process of education in schools. The core of investigation is how national school policy reforms in Poland are framed in transnational collaborations that meet with national particularities and contestations in the context of improving education policy in terms of governance of the education system. Regarding the fact that more decisions are made at school level in Poland than in other OECD countries (OECD 2015), the attention is paid to the complexity of the governance system, and the ways the national system, the regional systems and the local governance structure influence the work of school leaders in the school improvement.

*Hultqvist, E., Lindblad, S., & Popkewitz, T. S. (Eds.). (2018). Critical Analyses of Educational Reforms in an Era of Transnational Governance. Chan (CH): Springer. *Madalinska-Michalak, J. (2022). School Policy and Reforms in Poland: between democratisation and centralization. Paper presented at the Symposium “School Policy Reform in Europe: Exploring transnational alignments, national particularities and contestations” during ECER 2022, Yerevan, Armenia, 23 August 2022. *OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook. Poland. Paris: OECD. *OECD. (2018). Key Data on Local and Regional Governments in the European Union, *OECD and EU, http://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy. *OECD. (2019). OECD Skills Strategy Poland: Assessment and recommendations. Paris: OECD. *Prawo oświatowe z dnia 14 grudnia 2016 z późniejszymi zmianami [Law on School Education of 14 December 2016, with further amendments), Journal of Law 2021, item 1082. *Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Rinne, R. (Eds.). (2022). Reimagining Globalization and Education. New York & London: Routledge. *Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending. Building Comparative Policy Studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2012. Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education. New York: Routledge.

The paper addresses the school policy reforms in Slovenia and Croatia as an interplay of post-socialist transformation and Europeanization from a comparative perspective. More specifically, it focuses on the school policy and reform patterns in Slovenia and Croatia, by exploring their common roots, during the socialist era and the diverging development paths, since the 1990s. General development trends are identified and analysed, by exploring the influences of neoliberal and transnational approaches, with a particular focus on international large-scale student assessments (ILSAs) and their role in shaping national policies. Particular national issues are further explored, including the policy-borrowing and policy-lending patterns, their underlying political/ideological drivers and other issues where the two countries diverge from the transnational patterns. The paper is guided by the following research question: ‘How are the specific features of the development of the Slovenian and Croatian (post-socialist) systems reflected in the Europeanisation/internationalization of the Slovenian and Croatian educational space?’. The conceptual/theoretical framework is based on post-socialist transformation theories (e.g. Chankseliani & Silova, 2018; Halász, 2015), EU and transnational educational governance (Alexiadou, 2014; Hultqvist et al., 2018) and policy learning in education (e.g. Steiner-Khamsi & Waldow, 2012). A comparative analysis is based on a thorough review of the relevant literature and secondary sources, an analysis of formal documents and legal sources at the EU and national level (e.g. qualitative evaluation of the European Education & Training framework and national strategic policy documents) and a review of the ILSAs data. In the paper, we develop a critical perspective on the motives and timing of Slovenian and Croatian education policy-making by referring to the reform initiatives and their impact; joining/withdrawing from some cycles of ILSA and comparative studies; bilateral/regional cooperation efforts. Therefore, we show that policy-making in education is not only about modernization and reform processes, but that it is tightly coupled with the ideological presumptions and preferences, adopted by the political actors. Especially in the case of Croatia, Europeanisation is often used as a general argument for the formal adoption of ambitious education reform agenda(s), which are rarely fully implemented.

*Alexiadou, N. (2014). Policy learning and Europeanisation in education: the governance of a field and the transfer of knowledge. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy flows in European education: the making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field (pp. 123–140). Oxford: Symposium Books. *Chankseliani, M., & Silova, I. (Eds.). (2018). Comparing Post-Socialist Transformations purposes, policies, and practices in education. Oxford: Symposium Books. *Halász, G. (2015). Education and Social Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 350–371. *Hultqvist, E., Lindblad, S., & Popkewitz, T. S. (Eds.) (2018). Critical Analyses of Educational Reforms in an Era of Transnational Governance. Cham: Springer. *Steiner-Khamsi, G., & F. Waldow (Eds.) (2012). Policy borrowing and lending in education. London: Routledge.