23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Framing Diversity as an Asset: the Pursuit of Territorial Cohesion Through the Multilevel Governance of Education in Portugal
Ana Grifo, João Lourenço Marques
Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP) - University of Aveiro, Portugal. Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences - University of Aveiro
Presenting Author: Grifo, Ana
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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAccording to Purkarthofer (2018), narratives and discourse are especially relevant when researching areas governed by the Open Method of Coordination, where the EU lacks lawmaking powers. It is thus almost inevitable to resort to a methodology that dissects narratives, which is why we follow the narrative policy framework proposed by Jones & McBeth (2010). This framework will be used to analyze the local policy instruments that allow us to test the hypotheses and answer our research question. Those instruments are the Local Education Planning Charter (Carta Educativa, in the original) and the Local Strategic Plan for Education, designed by a sample of Portuguese municipalities.
This sample comprises ten municipalities: two from each region of mainland Portugal (Norte, Centro, Lisboa, Alentejo, and Algarve), in accordance with the following criteria:
i) One municipality considered a top-performer territory in education and with a high absorption of European funds;
ii) One municipality considered a bottom-performing territory in education and with a low absorption of European funds;
iii) In order to carry out the required narrative analysis, each municipality must have its local education policy instruments publicly displayed.
We argue that these criteria and strategy are coherent with the backdrop of our research, linking the European and local scales of education policy.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe expect to confirm some insights from previous studies, namely those that find a hybridism in Portuguese education policies (Baixinho, 2017; Teodoro & Aníbal, 2007), between the European sphere of influence and national/subnational aspirations and scope of action. Within this context, we expect to find a seemingly paradoxical coexistence of cohesion as a condition for competitiveness (which might in itself be a contradiction). Given the local knowledge of endogenous resources, we expect to encounter cohesion (at least partially) understood as the promotion of diversity as an asset, where education plays an important role, despite the weight of constraining vulnerabilities.
While this is not, perhaps, the cheeriest conclusion for researchers that understand education beyond its economic purpose, it is a sort of seed for the consolidation of a diversity-oriented paradigm of territorial cohesion, fostered by education.
ReferencesAlexiadou, N. (2007). The Europeanisation of Education Policy: Researching Changing Governance and ‘New’ Modes of Coordination. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2007.2.2.102
Artelaris, P., & Mavrommatis, G. (2020). Territorial cohesion as a policy narrative: From economic competitiveness to ‘smart’ growth and beyond. Social Inclusion, 8(4), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i4.3336
Baixinho, A. F. (2017). Políticas educativas em Portugal: governação, contexto local e hibridismo. EccoS – Revista Científica, 42, 105–124. https://doi.org/10.5585/eccos.n42.3606
Chamusca, P., Marques, J. L., Pires, S. M., & Teles, F. (2022). Territorial cohesion: discussing the mismatch between conceptual definitions and the understanding of local and intra-regional public decision-makers. Territory, Politics, Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2022.2044899
Dale, R. (2009). Contexts, Constraints and Resources in the Development of European Education Space and European Education Policy. In R. Dale & S. Robertson (Eds.), Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education (pp. 23–44). Symposium Books.
Faludi, A. (2005). Territorial cohesion: An unidentified political objective. Town Planning Review, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.76.1.1
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
Knodt, M., & Schoenefeld, J. J. (2020). Harder soft governance in European climate and energy policy: exploring a new trend in public policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(6), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1832885
Marques, J. L., Wolf, J., & Feitosa, F. (2021). Accessibility to primary schools in Portugal: a case of spatial inequity? Regional Science Policy and Practice, 13(3), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12303
Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial Cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial Development, 1(60), 1–30.
Nordin, A. (2014). Europeanisation in national educational reforms – horizontal and vertical translations. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational Policy Flows in European Education (Issue March, pp. 141–158). Symposium Books.
Nóvoa, A. (2013). The Blindness of Europe: New Fabrications in the European Educational Space. SISYPHUS Journal of Education, 1(1), 104–123.
Purkarthofer, E. (2018). Diminishing borders and conflating spaces: a storyline to promote soft planning scales. European Planning Studies, 26(5), 1008–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1430750
Teodoro, A., & Aníbal, G. (2007). A Educação em tempos de Globalização. Modernização e hibridismo nas políticas educativas em Portugal. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 10, 13–26.
Vester, B. (2008). Education and local government working together: a community governance approach. Policy Quarterly, 4(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v4i1.4240
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Selling a Nordic “Helping Hand”? Education Export in Finland and Sweden
Helena Hinke Dobrochinski Candido1, Linda Rönnberg2
1University of Helsinki, Finland; 2Umeå University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Hinke Dobrochinski Candido, Helena;
Rönnberg, Linda
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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur analysis relies on data from export stakeholder interviews conducted between 2021 and 2022 in Finland and Sweden from three main stakeholder groups: i) Government representatives (from Ministries and Agencies), ii) Experts and advocacy groups, such as interest group representatives (incl. business associations and PPPs), and iii) education export entrepreneurs and edu-business representatives (N=14 in Finland and N=13 in Sweden). The informants were mainly identified via snowball sampling and on their centrality in education export networks. The interviews were recorded and transcribed and included questions on, for instance, experiences from education export, central actors and networks, justifications and reasons for education export, enablers and hindrances, as well as the perceived image of Finland/Sweden in international interactions, etc. The analysis is supplemented by Finnish and Swedish policy documents and related materials (e.g., texts from government websites) and commercial brochures and online materials related to education export (e.g., edu-business websites). We employ qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012) in the first step when analysing the data to examine whether and how policy- and commercial actors in Finland and Sweden make use of national and/or Nordic models in education export. We thus begin to structure the data by identifying text passages on the motivation, demand, justification, positioning, and functions of education export. In the second step, we analyse the excerpts from step one with a focus on the function and use of rhetorical elements (Marjanen et al., 2021). This is done to further unpack when and how the Nordic and/or the national (Finnish and Swedish) is used to make a claim of exceptionalism and difference or as a marker of tension(s) and disruption(s).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe interviews evidenced how Finnish stakeholders make use of PISA to justify the high demand and to confer prestige and reputation to the education products and services they export. In Sweden, we observed a de-coupling between education export activities (non-politicized) and education companies operating for-profit at home (highly contested). In these stakeholder narratives, the rhetoric of the Nordic is strategically operationalised to suit different circumstances under the realm of national identity, fuelled by nation branding efforts that take place in both countries.
Moreover, we found that Finnish and Swedish stakeholders’ justifications and positionings of the commercialisation of education is embedded in the idea of otherness. The other (importer) is portrayed as in need of certain knowledge and skills that are provided by the exporter. As expressed in a Finnish nation branding report - “the Finnish model is well-known, and it can also serve as a channel for many current developing countries (CBR, 2010, p. 193)”, the trade of education is particularly (but not only) targeting “developing countries”. This, we argue, constitute a specific form of neo-colonialism, aided and enabled via education export.
We conclude that the commercialisation of Nordic education abroad unveils tensions in which neoliberal capitalism commodifies education as a tradable welfare service by means of offering a ”helping hand” to education systems in need of education improvement and services. In such scenario, the Nordic (and the Nordic countries) would be the saviour(s) by exporting education as if they would be exporting the “truth”. This leads us to John Meyer’s (1977) definition of education as a “secular religion” in modern societies, where education is salvation and attached to hopes for miracles, which nowadays may come in the form of exported commercial packages, branded by Nordic edu-business actors.
ReferencesAndersen, M., (2020). Commodifying the Nordic Welfare State in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism: The Journey of Nordic Childcare Know-how to China. (PhD Diss.) Aalborg Universitet: Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet.
Andersson, J. & Hilson, M. (2009). Images of Sweden and the Nordic Countries. Scandinavian Journal of History, 34(3), 219-228.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge.
CBR (2010). Final report of the Country Brand Delegation. Available at https://toolbox.finland.fi/strategy-research/maabrandiraportti/
Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(2), 97–103.
Marklund, 2017 Marklund, C. (2017). The Nordic Model on the Global Market of Ideas: The Welfare State as Scandinavia’s Best Brand, Geopolitics, 22(3), 623-639.
Marjanen, J., Strang, J.& Hilson, M. (Eds.) (2021). Contesting Nordicness: From Scandinavianism to the Nordic Brand. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meyer, J. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 55-77.
Moeller K. (2020). Accounting for the Corporate: An Analytic Framework for Understanding Corporations in Education. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 232-240.
Parreira do Amaral, M., Steiner-Khamsi, G. & C. Thompson (Eds.) (2019). Researching the Global Education Industry. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rönnberg, L. & Candido, H. (2023). When Nordic education myths meet economic realities: The ‘Nordic model’ in education export in Finland and Sweden. Forthcoming in Nordic Studies in Education.
Schatz, M. (2016). Engines without Fuel? Empirical Findings on Finnish Higher Education Institutions as Education Exporters. Policy Futures in Education, 14(3), 392-408.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2018). Businesses seeing like a state, governments calculating like a business. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(5), 382-392.
Strang, J., Marjanen, J. & Hilson, M. (2021). A Rhetorical Perspective on Nordicness: From Creating Unity to Exporting Models. In: Marjanen, J., Strang, J. & Hilson, M. (Eds.) Contesting Nordicness: From Scandinavianism to the Nordic Brand. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1-34.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: SAGE Publications.
Verger, A., Lubienski, C. & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.) (2016). World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry. New York: Routledge.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Opting out or General Provision in Scandinavia? Freedom of Choice in Upper Secondary Education
Annette Rasmussen1, Marianne Dovemark2
1Aalborg University, Denmark; 2University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Rasmussen, Annette;
Dovemark, Marianne
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?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur general approach to the analysis is an adopted version of t critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992). By means of a three-level analysis, we attempt to provide insights into the working systems of connections between the discursive elements, the interpretations of the discourses and, the way the systems are organised, the structures and social practice.
By analyzing legal texts, minutes of meetings, press releases, national statistics, and different journals and newspapers our aim is to trace how contemporary policies for ‘freedom of choice’ in the given locations have been preceded by other policies and thus to understand, not only the global, but also the temporal location of the policy reforms (Rizwi & Lingard, 2010). When the ‘freedom of choice’ discourse “enters” different national systems, it meets with particular cultural and political histories and play out according to these (Ball, 2008).
For the purpose of this paper, we will carry out a juxta-positional comparison (Green, 2004) of Denmark and Sweden, addressing the main themes of the freedom of choice discourse from the perspective of each country’s own fields. In line with Green (2004, p. 42), we define ‘compare’ as examining the nature or properties of a phenomenon to discover both similarities and differences, having been melded together in the concept of comparing. The level of analysis will thus be aimed at perceiving sameness and focusing on particularities by emphasising both common themes and variations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe freedom of choice governance of upper secondary education involves a market logic that is contradictory to central aspects of a ‘school for all’ as providing education and ensuring equality of opportunities. Thus, it illustrates that there are more subtle mechanisms of social and cultural selection, which by means of the value-added grant system tend to have the same effect as financial selection – that is, increase public spending on the privileged students and institutions (Piketty, 2017). Although the underlying education policies are similar in Denmark and Sweden the so called ‘freedom of choice’ involves an inherent contradiction to providing education and ensuring equality of opportunities for all, since the ‘free choice’ is strongly depending on location and resources (c.f. van Zanten, 2007; Fraser, 1990).
The so called, freedom of choice seems to turn a blind-eye to or is uncritical to the
mechanisms and processes in the marketplace that can undermine students’ possibilities of freedom of choice and thus create educational inequities. Thus, it is likely to increase segregation and polarisation and thereby pose a threat to universal provision, which will diminish general access to upper secondary education.
ReferencesBall, S. J. (2008). The Education Debate. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Blossing, U., Imsen, G. & Moos, L. (2014). Nordic Schools in a Time of Change. In The Nordic education model: ‘A school for all’ Encounters Neo-liberal Policy. Springer, 1-14.
Dovemark, M., et al. (2018). Deregulation, Privatisation, and Marketisation of Nordic Comprehensive Education: Social Changes Reflected in Schooling, Education Inquiry, DOI 10.1080/20004508.2018.1429
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fjellman, A.-M., Yang-Hansen, K. & Beach, D. (2018). School choice and implications for equity: the new political geography of the Swedish upper secondary school market. Educational Review, 71, 518-539.
Forsey, M., Davies, S., Walford, G., & University of Western Australia (eds.). (2008). The Globalisation of School Choice? Symposium Books.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Green, L. N. (2004) Forms of Comparison. In Deborah Cohen & Maura O’Conner (ed.) Comparison and History. Europe in cross-national perspective, 41-56, NY: Routledge.
Lundahl, L., I. Erixon Arreman, A. Holm, and Lundström, U. (2013). Educational Marketization the Swedish Way. Education Inquiry 4 (3): 22620. doi:10.3402/edui. v4i3.22620.
Nevøy, A., Rasmussen, A., Ohna, S. E. & Barow, T. (2014). Nordic Upper Secondary School: Regular and Irregular Programmes - Or Just One Irregular School for All? In Blossing, U., Imsen, G. & Moos, L. (eds. 2014). The Nordic Education Model: ‘A School for All’ Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy. Springer, 191-210.
Piketty, T. (2017). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
Raae, P. H. (2011). The Nordic model of education and the Danish «gymnasium». Nordic Studies in Education, Vol. 32. 311–320.
Rasmussen, A. & Dovemark, M. (eds. 2022). Governance and Choice of Upper Secondary Education in the Nordic Countries. Springer.
Rasmussen, A. & Lolle, E. L. (2021). Accessibility of General Adult Education. An analysis of the restructuring of adult education governance in Denmark. Adult Education Quarterly.
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. London and New York: Routledge.
Telhaug, A.O., Mediås, O.A. & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic Model in Education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 50, no. 3, 245-283.
Van Zanten, A. (2007). Bourdieu as education policy analyst and expert: A rich but ambitions legacy. In B. Lingard & J. Ozga (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics (254–267).
|
