23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
"Examining the shift towards Network Governance in Portuguese Education: the case of the Pedagogical Innovation Pilot Project (PIPP)".
Estela Costa
Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Presenting Author: Costa, Estela
Since the turn of the century, Portugal has been experiencing the emergence of school administration models emphasizing community participation, accompanied by a shift towards granting greater autonomy to schools. This shift is aligned with the principles of the New Public Management's ‘educational toolkit’ (Verger & Curran, 2014, p.256). As a result of this transformation, diverse programs and practices have been introduced, with a strong emphasis on school-based management and pedagogy. Schools are now empowered to make decisions regarding their curriculum and educational initiatives, tailored to their specific social contexts (ibid). This is demonstrated through a series of policies implemented through reflection, negotiation, and collaboration, such as school external evaluation. These policies have resulted in a gradual reduction of hierarchical control by the State and have paved the way for network governance. One example is the 'Pedagogical Innovation Pilot Project' (PIPP) (2016-2019), an initiative based on school-based management that aims to promote student success and address school dropout rates.
PIPP was implemented in six school clusters nationwide, providing participating schools with increased autonomy in organizational, pedagogical, and curricular areas (Costa & Almeida, 2019). It involved approximately 744 teachers and 7,844 students across various grades and locations to enhance the quality of learning and educational outcomes. Additionally, it aimed to tackle the issues of school dropout and failure across all teaching cycles by facilitating the implementation of innovation projects in participating schools (Portugal, 2017).
The outcomes of PPIP of reducing school dropout and improving retention rates have been very positive. These achievements have been realized by modifying the rigid pedagogical structure of schools and reshaping the perceptions of school actors regarding how school, curriculum, and student assessment should be delivered. Additionally, PPIP has instigated a recent policy that grants schools the authority to manage more than 25% of the national curriculum, subject to an innovation plan developed by the schools and approved by the Ministry of Education (ME) (Portugal, 2019).
This paper builds upon a previous study (Carvalho, Costa & Almeida, 2020) that emphasized the importance of knowledge in policy-politics and the underlying logic of PPIP, where the production, legitimization, and dissemination of knowledge facilitate the coordination and control of actions in the educational field. We aim to examine PIPP as a lens to analyze the shifts in the steering of the education system, specifically through the perspective of network governance. This leads to the research question: How does PIPP exemplify the rise of network-based coordination and control within the education system? To address this question, three objectives were established: (i) to identify and analyze the actors involved in the design and implementation of PIPP, (ii) to examine the instruments and forms of control utilized, and (iii) to analyze the interactions among the involved actors.
The study is grounded in the public action approach to public policies (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007; Hassenteufel, 2008), which emphasizes the involvement of various actors in shaping and interpreting activities within the public sphere of education, extending beyond government intervention (Van Zanten, 2000). To achieve this, we will employ the concept of governance, which considers the relationship between State intervention and societal autonomy, spanning a continuum from public authority to societal self-regulation (Treib, Bähr & Falkner, 2007; Barroso, 2005). Drawing upon Meuleman's (2008) typology of hierarchical, network, and market governance, which can manifest in different combinations, our objective is to comprehend the factors that hinder the shift toward network steering and examine the implications of novel governance approaches, particularly about the coexistence with hierarchical governance.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA qualitative research methodology was used based on an interpretive approach (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). Archival research techniques and interviews with key actors (such as school and deputy principals, coordinators, and class directors) were conducted, guided by the assumption that these documents represent tangible outcomes facilitating cooperation among the various actors (Carvalho, 2006, p.42). The analysis of documents encompassed a wide range of materials, including legislation and official internal documents from the ME and the government, monitoring reports, school projects, evaluation reports, as well as agendas of meetings and seminars.
The interviews were conducted with 86 key informants and comprised two types: semi-structured and focus group interviews. The semi-structured interviews involved one high official from the ME, six school principals, one deputy principal, and three assistant principals. Additionally, 13 interviews were conducted with PIPP coordinators at the school clusters. Focus group interviews were held with 37 middle managers, including department coordinators, general coordinators, and psychologists, as well as 25-year/class coordinators. The data from the interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the methodology outlined by Bardin (2009). Both the written documents and interviews enabled us to address the research objectives by identifying and analyzing the actors involved in the design and implementation of the PIPP. Additionally, we examined the instruments and types of control used by these actors and explored how they interact with each other.
For the analysis of documents and interviews, we utilized the deductive method, employing the categories of analysis "who" (actors) (state/non-state) and "how" (meetings /seminars) of the PIPP. Additionally, we drew inspiration from two specific features of governance based on Meuleman's (2008) dimensions to guide the categories and subcategories of analysis. These features include the types of instruments utilized, such as legislation/compliance (associated with hierarchical governance) or voluntary/contracting instruments that require the actors' adherence (associated with network governance). We also considered the way control was established, namely, through authority processes (hierarchical, top-down) or based on trust (horizontal, networked, resulting from goal consensus).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPIPP represents a shift in the modes of coordination employed by state authorities, aiming to eliminate or minimize retention and dropout rates through network governance and the engagement of diverse actors. While this intent was successfully achieved, there still existed a dominance of the 'Rule of Law' and Control, a fundamental aspect of public administration accomplished by hierarchy (Hood, 1991). State authorities willingly relinquished some formal authority, entrusting schools to make their own decisions and assume responsibilities. While the relationship between state authorities and schools followed a vertical structure in terms of project design, requiring validation and ongoing monitoring by the Ministry, emphasis was placed on nurturing horizontal relationships. The Ministry of Education (ME) actively engaged schools in meditative and reflective activities, which principals then implemented in their schools. Networking played a crucial role, with events highly valued for facilitating collaborative interaction, a key feature of governance networks (Tenbensel, 2005).
The ME played a significant role in managing the network, organizing meetings and seminars, and demonstrating concern for participants' needs. This contributed to the development of routine interaction, which is critical for maintaining and building trust among participants (McEvily & Zaheer, 2004). Trust, unlike hierarchy, is not based on formal control but on dependency and earlier interactions, core features of governance networks (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer, 1998; Klijn, 2010). The coexistence of new governance modes alongside hierarchy presents challenges (Héritier, 2003; Eberlein & Kerwer, 2004), and public policy processes often require different governance styles to accommodate diverse phases (Meuleman, 2011). In the case of PIPP, schools expected the state to remain closely involved and supportive, with the state playing a key brokering role as an intermediary between the national and local levels.
ReferencesBardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Barroso, J. (2005). O Estado, a educação e a regulação das políticas públicas. E&S, 26 (92), pp. 725-751.
Carvalho, L. M. (2006). Apontamentos sobre as relações entre conhecimento e política educativa. Administração Educacional (6), pp. 36-45.
Carvalho, L.M., Costa, E., & Almeida, M. (2021). Recontextualization of improvement-oriented policies in Portugal: the case of the PPIP (2016-2019). IJER. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101865
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Costa, E., & Almeida, M. (2019). Evaluation Study of the Pedagogical Innovation Pilot Project. Lisboa: IE-ULisboa/MEC/DGE.
Eberlein, B., Kerwer, D. (2004) ‘New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective’, JCMS 42(1): 121–42.
Hassenteufel, P. (2008). Sociologie politique: l’action publique. Paris: AC.
Héritier, A. (2003) New Modes of Governance in Europe: Increasing Political Capacity and Policy Effectiveness. The State of the European Union, 6. Oxford: UP.
Klijn, E. H. (2010). Trust in Governance Networks: Looking for Conditions for Innovative Solutions and Outcomes. In The new public governance?. NY: Routledge.
Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Sociologie de l’action publique. Paris: AC.
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Architects of trust: The role of network facilitators in geographical clusters. In Trust and Distrust in Organizations (pp. 189-213). RSF.
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets. Dordrecht: Springer.
Meuleman, L. (2011). Metagoverning governance styles–broadening the public manager's action. In Interactive Policymaking, Metagovernance and Democracy (pp. 95–110). HQ, UK: ECPR Press.
PORTUGAL (2017). Despacho n.º 3721/2017 - DR n.º 85/2017, Série II de 2017-05-03 https://dre.pt/application/conteudo/106958832
PORTUGAL (2019). Portaria nº 181/2019, DR n.º 111/2019, Série I de 2019-06-11, https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/122541299/details/maximized
Rousseau D., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., Camerer C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. The AMR, 23, 393-404.
Tenbensel, T. (2005) Multiple modes of governance, Public Management Review, 7:2, 267-288, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719030500091566
Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007) Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification, Journal European Public Policy, 14:1, 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406
Van Zanten, A. (2000). Les Politiques de l’Éducation. Paris: PUF.
Verger, A., & Curran, M. (2014). NPM as a global education policy: its adoption and re-contextualization in a Southern European setting, Critical Studies in Education, 55:3, 253-271, https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.913531
Windzio, M., Sackmann, R., & Martens, K. (2005). Types of Governance in Education – A Quantitative Analysis. Bremen: Sfb 597 „Staatlichkeit im Wandel“
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
On Educational Innovation: Uses and Meanings in Academic Literature
Miriam Prieto1, Alberto Sánzchez-Rojo2, Tania Alonso-Sainz2
1Autonomous University Mad, Spain; 2Complutense University of Madrid
Presenting Author: Prieto, Miriam
Educational innovation has become considered the keystone for leading the adaptation of education to 21st century societies and economies (Greany, 2016; Hallgarten & Beresford, 2015; Hargreaves, 2003). It has been proposed as a suitable solution to very different school systems and societies’ needs (Lubienski, 2009), and in many contexts has even been advanced by means of large-scale reforms (Fullan, 2009; Glazer & Peurach, 2013; Sotiriou et al., 2016). Despite the widespread policies that have promoted innovation in education, the scarce evidence points out that (1) innovation is an umbrella term that includes many different approaches and meanings (Pedró, 2023); and therefore (2) is being used to promote―and sustain―different agendas and policies such as diversifying the teaching-learning processes, improving students’ academic performance or promoting inclusion within the schools, to name the most explicit (Serdyukov, 2017). One of the main concerns about this is that it might be subtly extending the use of technologies or enhancing the presence and participation of the private actors within the public education systems (Saura et al., 2023). Another concern refers to a false dichotomy built through educational discourses that faces educational innovation against traditional innovation as if both were homogeneous movements (Brailovsky, 2018). The lack of a comprehensive approach to educational innovation leads us to argue for the need of a deeper analysis of (a) the meanings associated to the concept of innovation in education; and (b) the uses of the concept, to what ends is being used and by who. Meanings and uses of educational innovation are the two key research questions that this research aims to give answer to.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDue to the broadness of the research aims, we have carried out a scoping review aiming to capture the different meanings that are being adopted, in academic literature, under the term educational innovation, and the various uses linked to them. The scoping literature review has been conducted of English and Spanish literature including peer-reviewed articles and reviews from Scopus and Web of Science databases since 2000. A necessary refinement of the search syntax, due to the extensive use of the term ‘educational innovation’ outside the education realm, reported 1243 documents. Based on the title and keywords we conducted a first screening that reported 458 results; a second screening focusing on the abstract reported 412 documents. A third screening is being carried out based on the content of the documents.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe greater part of the reviewed literature consists of descriptive empirical studies, what reveals a lack of theoretical discussion on the foundations and implications of innovation in education, as well as analytical or (explicitly) critical studies. Teachers are the key receivers of the educational innovation discourses, but not its makers. Despite an important part of the literature explores their motivations, attitudes or oppositions to the development of educational innovation initiatives, research tend to place them as implementers of externally introduced innovation projects rather than enactors or developers of them. Plus, innovation is quite often not only associated with, but reduced to, technological use, what implies the reduction of the teaching-learning processes to its means, therefore emptying its content.
ReferencesBrailovsky, D. (2018). Lo nuevo y lo tradicional en educación: una oposición engañosa. Revista Senderos Pedagógicos, 9(1), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.53995/sp.v9i9.963
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101-113. DOI: 10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z
Glazer, J.L. & Peurach, D.J. (2012). School Improvement Networks as a Strategy for Large-Scale Education Reform: The Role of Educational Environments. Educational Policy, 27(4), 676-710.
Greany, T. (2016). Innovation is possible, it’s just not easy: Improvement, innovation and legitimacy in England’s autonomous and accountable school system. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/1741143216659297
Hallgarten, H.V. & Beresford, T. (2015). Creative Public Leadership: How School System Leaders Can Create the Conditions for System-wide Innovation. WISE.
Hargreaves, D. (2003). Education Epidemic: Transforming Secondary Schools through Innovation Networks. Demos.
Lubienski, C. (2009). Do quasi-markets foster innovation in education? A comparative perspective. OECD Education Working Paper Nº 25. DOI: 10.1787/221583463325
Pedró, F. (2023). Where is the school going? International trends in educational innovation. Handbook of Education Policy, 147.
Saura, G., Cancela, E. & Parcerisa, L. (2023). Privatización educativa digital. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 27(1), 11-37. DOI: 10.30827/profesorado.v27i1.27019
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. DOI: 10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
Sotiriou, S., Riviou, K., Cherouvis, S., Chelioti, E. & Bogner, F.X. (2016). Introducing Large-Scale Innovation in Schools. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 541–549. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-016-9611-y
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Proposal of a new Educational paradigm Based on Research and Dialogue (EBRD)
Hugo González-González, Gemma Fernández-Caminero, Jose-Luis Alvarez-Castillo
University of Cordoba, Spain
Presenting Author: González-González, Hugo
In the field of education, according to the European Commission (2018), key competences and basic skills are those that every person needs for their personal fulfilment and development and for their employability, social inclusion and active citizenship. On the one hand, the OECD has regularly promoted and assessed the level of development of students' competences globally since 2000 and, in view of the results, which have been demonstrating insufficient performance in reading, mathematics and science for more than two decades, reports and strategies of all kinds have been prepared to correct the situation described (OECD, 2023a). On the other hand, and despite the commitment made by most of the States involved in the assessment of the competence development of their students to reduce early school leaving and promote education that allows them to achieve the objectives of competency-based education, the truth is that school dropout rates remain very high and academic performance remains insufficient in many countries (OECD, 2023b) Thus, in the current context, after more than two decades of discouraging results, in Scotland – a pioneering country in Europe of Competency-Based Education (CBE) – this educational model is being abandoned. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of results to show that CBE has achieved the objectives to which it is supposed to contribute: improving the quality of education, reducing early school leaving and social inequalities.
Times of change are coming. Scotland is not the only country in our neighbourhood that has accumulated very poor results for too long in areas as important and of such projection as those already mentioned. Now, the time inverted in getting back on track will harm the most vulnerable: children in pre-school, primary and secondary education. As educators, and in view of these circumstances, it seems imperative to us to carry out a rigorous study and provide a roadmap from a scientific perspective and from a pedagogical and dialogic basis, far from the different ideological biases, which have contributed to shaping the situation in which we find ourselves. In accordance with the objectives pursued by the CBE, it is possible to synthesize the analysis of the results around the three dimensions that constitute the main concerns that motivate dropout with respect to this paradigm: quality, inclusion and early school leaving. Regarding the degree of achievement of the objectives and after the latest publication of PISA results (2023), we have been able to observe in different media how some politicians blame the heterogeneity of the student body for the debacle and, as so many other times, set up commissions of experts who are required to solve - in record time - all the problems. In this regard, beyond the complexity of the problems and the deadlines for work they have, we usually find commissions characterized in their composition, based on trusted profiles, by people known for their ideologies and affiliations. For these reasons, the commissions of experts that are continuously constituted on the basis of political decisions, have been demonstrating for more than two decades a total absence of results, and in no case can they be independent when those who make up these commissions are appointed by those who instrumentalize education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe CBE has posed a number of challenges to which it has repeatedly tried to respond without success. Our research will focus on analysing the degree of achievement of the objectives of the CBE while delving into the selection of criteria and indicators that allow the establishment of a new model focused on increasing the quality of education, reducing early school leaving and promoting inclusive education:
1. The OECD's PISA tests show information about educational quality and academic performance with disappointing results, as indicated above. E.g., in Spain, the average yield is lower than in 2012, slightly below the OECD average, where it has been stagnant since the beginning, more than two decades ago.
2. Organisations such as Save the Children, the OECD and organisations such as the Ministries of Education have produced reports and compile data on early school leaving in Europe. In this regard, although there has been some progress, many countries are far away from the recommended maximun rate of 9%. E.g., Spain has the worst Early Leaving rate in the EU, 13,6%, only surpassed by Romania (OECD, 2023c)
3. Inclusive education: variables such as mental health and those related to all types of vulnerable groups require a holistic, quantitative and qualitative analysis that also includes the dimensions referred above. We can find indicators in many repositories from different institutions and organisations.
The World Bank (2015) in its report entitled "Social Inclusion: Key to Prosperity for All" emphasizes the importance of asking why poor outcomes continue to persist for some groups, before designing the instruments to combat exclusion. On the other hand, the Children's Observatory, as well as other reports and a multitude of indicators, show that the goals are far from being achieved (UNICEF, 2023). Our project aims to contribute to solve all these difficulties by analysing them in depth and providing an alternative paradigm.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe possibility of generating a new educational model, the perspective of giving voice to the actors and that they participate in the gestation of a system free of political and "bureaucratizing" interference, in which the protagonists are effectively students and teachers (without forgetting the students' families), forces us to think -more than ever- of the school as a living entity that cannot survive suffocated by the weight of the machinery that has generated the BCE. Partial evidence does not hold up in complex, dynamic systems. For this reason, Education based on research and dialogue (EBRD) must be configured as a new way of addressing the particularity of research in education (through data mining, meta-analysis, structural equation modeling, ...) and the configuration of educational models in which heterogeneity is a constant in movement.
ReferencesEuropean Comission (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)
OECD (2023a). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
OECD (2023b), PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en.
OECD (2023c). Proposals for an action plan to reduce early school leaving in Spain. OECD, No. 71. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9bc3285d-es.
UNICEF (2023). Division of Data, Analytics, Planning and Monitoring – Data and Analytics Section, Progress on Children’s Well-Being: Centring child rights in the 2030 agenda – For every child, a sustainable future. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
World Bank (2015). Inclusion matters: the foundation for shared prosperity. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/318331467998794288/Inclusion-social-clave-de-la-prosperidad-para-todos
|
