Conference Agenda

Since the 1990s, international aid organisations, including those from Europe, have increasingly shaped literacy education reforms in low- and middle-income countries through the promotion of ‘evidence-based’ and comparative policy approaches. These reforms often prioritise school-based interventions and measurable learning outcomes while overlooking the broader socio-cultural contexts of education (Niño-Zarazúa 2016). This donor-driven orientation has generated sustained critiques regarding aid effectiveness, sustainability, and the relevance of externally driven education policies for addressing locally grounded challenges (Silova et al. 2025). These concerns are particularly salient for European education research, given the prominent role of European donors, policy frameworks, and intellectual traditions in global education governance and policy transfer.

Central to these critiques are debates about the politics of knowledge production in education policy, especially given that when early literacy reforms encounter political and socio-cultural plurality they adopt reductionist approaches (Jackson et al. 2025) rooted in Western epistemological dominance (Silova et al., 2025). Scholars argue that such approaches marginalise Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) by framing policy problems and solutions in ways that privilege Western knowledge while rendering Indigenous epistemologies invisible or irrelevant (Mignolo 2009; Huaman 2022). Rather than focusing exclusively on literacy outcomes, this scholarship calls for closer examination of policy processes, assumptions, and practices that sustain epistemic hierarchies.

Responding to the limited empirical research on the politics of knowledge production in early literacy policy (Hackett et al. 2020), this paper presents a qualitative case study of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) early literacy initiatives in Zambia (2011 to 2013). The study examines how USAID engaged the Ministry of Education (MOE) during the policy process and how this engagement laid the groundwork for the adoption of Early Grade Reading (EGR) policies. The analysis is guided by three research questions: (1) What were the EGR policies promoted by USAID in Zambia? (2) What strategies did USAID use to soften decision makers in support of these policies? and (3) How were Indigenous Knowledge Systems silenced within the policy process?

The study adopts a critical policy perspective that foregrounds power relations, knowledge hierarchies, and policy entrepreneurship. Drawing on Nakata’s (2007) concept of the Cultural Interface and Kingdon’s (2014) Multiple Streams Approach, the paper analyses how donor-driven interventions operate within complex policy environments characterised by intersecting Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. Particular attention is paid to ‘softening-up’ strategies used by policy entrepreneurs to shape problem definitions, promote actionable policy ideas, build coalitions, and marginalise alternative forms of knowledge.

By analysing USAID’s role in Zambia’s early literacy policy process, this paper contributes to European and international education policy debates on aid effectiveness, policy transfer, and the decolonisation of education research. It highlights how well-intentioned literacy reforms can reproduce epistemic inequalities by excluding Indigenous Knowledge Systems from meaningful participation in policy design and decision making. The paper argues that addressing global literacy challenges requires greater attention to policy processes and stronger recognition of Indigenous knowledge as a legitimate and valuable component of education reform.

In recent decades, multilingual education has been widely promoted as a policy response to globalisation, knowledge-economy demands, and increased linguistic diversity. Kazakhstan’s trilingual education policy—designed to institutionalise Kazakh as the state language, Russian as the language of interethnic communication, and English as the language of global integration—represents one of the most ambitious education policy reforms in the field of language governance in post-Soviet contexts. Introduced as part of a broader modernisation agenda, the policy sought to transform secondary education by introducing English-medium instruction (EMI), particularly in STEM subjects, while maintaining bilingual instruction in Kazakh and Russian (Nazarbayev, 2007; Karabassova, 2018). Despite strong political endorsement and extensive piloting, the reform was effectively paused by the late 2010s, raising critical questions about why a strategically central policy failed to achieve its intended outcomes.

Conceptually, the paper is situated within education policy studies and is informed by a micro–meso–macro analytical framework (Dale, 1999), which enables examination of how centrally designed reforms (macro level) are mediated within institutional settings such as schools and local authorities (meso level) and ultimately enacted in professional practice at classroom level (micro level). Drawing on an in-depth critical analysis of peer-reviewed literature, government policy documents, evaluation reports, and empirical studies of school- and teacher-level responses, the study situates Kazakhstan’s experience within international debates on policy enactment, English-medium instruction, and multilingual education reform (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Braun et al., 2011; Johnson, 2013).

The paper is guided by three research questions:

1. How was the trilingual education policy conceptualised and justified within Kazakhstan’s secondary education reform agenda?
2. How did teachers and schools interpret and respond to the introduction of English-medium instruction in policy enactment at the level of professional practice?
3. What structural and institutional conditions constrained the effective enactment of the policy across mainstream secondary schools?

Analytically, the study adopts a policy enactment perspective that foregrounds the interaction between policy texts, institutional contexts, and professional agency within policy enactment (Braun et al., 2011). This approach enables a critical examination of how globally circulating models—such as CLIL and EMI—were transferred into Kazakhstan’s education system with limited adaptation to local linguistic ecologies, teacher preparedness, and resource disparities (Coyle et al., 2010; Cenoz et al., 2014). Particular attention is paid to teachers as key policy actors who actively negotiate reform demands in response to classroom realities, student proficiency levels, and workload pressures (Menken & García, 2010; Karabassova, 2022).

The analysis demonstrates that although the trilingual policy was coherent at the level of political discourse, its implementation was undermined by multiple interconnected factors. These included uneven teacher English proficiency, an overreliance on short-term training programmes, insufficient emphasis on pedagogical integration of content and language, and stark inequalities between elite pilot institutions and mainstream public schools, particularly in rural areas (Goodman & Karabassova, 2018; Karabassova, 2020). In many classrooms, limited student preparedness constrained meaningful engagement with subject content, leading to extensive code-switching and pedagogical simplification (Zhumanova et al., 2016; Imanova et al., 2025). As a result, trilingualism frequently functioned symbolically rather than substantively, weakening both subject learning and language development.

By placing Kazakhstan’s experience in comparative perspective, this paper contributes to international scholarship on education policy and the politics of reform by illustrating the risks of rapid, top-down initiatives and uncritical policy borrowing. It argues that sustainable multilingual education requires phased implementation, strong institutional mediation, and sustained investment in teacher development rather than ambitious timelines and symbolic targets.

Europeanisation of education constitutes a dynamic process in which supranational frameworks, policy discourses, and strategic initiatives shape national educational governance (Lawn & Grek, 2012). The European Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP-2021-2027) as pillar of the European Education Area (EEA) establish objectives related to digital skills, innovation, inclusion, and equity, structuring multi-level governance arrangements that connect national priorities with European strategies while interacting with institutional capacities, historical legacies, and sociomaterial infrastructures (European Commission, 2020; Radaelli, 2003).

In Greece, digital education policy is mediated through institutional actors that translate European priorities into national curricula, strategic plans, and digital infrastructures. The Institute of Educational Policy (ΙΕP) plays a key role in curricular development, educational innovation, and participation in European digital initiatives, including the adoption of frameworks such as DigCompEdu and SELFIE for Teachers (European Commission, 2020). Complementing this role, the Institute of Technology and Research in Education (CTI-ΙΤΥΕ “Διόφαντος”) operates as the technological arm of the Ministry of Education, overseeing the development and maintenance of digital platforms, ICT infrastructures, and large-scale systems such as the Greek School Network, which are central to the implementation of digital education policies.

This institutional configuration reflects broader shifts in Greek educational policy making, where European policy priorities are operationalised through national agencies and technological instruments. Over the last decades, national policy has progressively moved from an emphasis on democratisation and social integration toward modernisation agendas aligned with European discourses on performance, efficiency, and competitiveness (Sifakakis, Tsatsaroni, Sarakinioti, & Kourou, 2016).

Recent literature on education governance frames policy making not as a set of isolated institutional decisions, but as a process unfolding through heterogeneous networks of actors, including state agencies, expert bodies, policy instruments, and digital infrastructures (Landri, 2020). Building on this, Landri (2018) shows how digital governance in education can be mapped through “cartographies” that make visible the connections between institutional actors, technological infrastructures, and policy tools. Such cartographies illuminate how European frameworks are interpreted, adapted, and stabilised within national contexts, providing a lens to explore the relational and infrastructural dimensions of digital education governance. In this landscape, European policies, technological platforms, and regulatory frameworks do not operate in isolation; they intersect with national institutions, shaping priorities, coordination mechanisms, and patterns of participation in ways that are both structured and contingent (Decuypere, Grimaldi & Landri, 2021).

The study is guided by two research questions. First, which actors and policy initiatives define the landscape of digital education in Greece, and how have these actors, policies, institutional arrangements, and priorities evolved in recent years? Second, how do Greek digital education policies correspond to and integrate with overarching European digital education strategies and frameworks? These questions position digital education as a central element of Europeanisation while considering the complexities of alignment and adaptation in national contexts.

The theoretical framework integrates Europeanisation theory, Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and cartography. Europeanisation theory illuminates how European policies are translated, negotiated, and embedded within national systems (Edenhofer & Kowarsch, 2015; Landri, 2018; Radaelli, 2003). ANT frames governance as the product of heterogeneous networks of human and non-human actors-including ministries, agencies, policy documents, and technological tools-that together co-produce policy enactment (Latour, 2005; Law, 1992). Governance is characterised by a dynamic interaction among actors, who operate within networks and topologies that span local, national, and global levels (Landri, 2020). Cartography provides methodological instruments to map these networks systematically, visualise relational dynamics, and identify hierarchies, policy priorities, and influential actors (Cruz-López et al., 2022; Liebman & Paulston, 1994).