An article review: Placing teachers in global governance agenda

Placing Teachers in Global Governance Agendas

An article by Susan Robertson, in Comparative Education Review, Vol. 56, No.4, 2012

Presented by: Iwan Syahril

Video: NBC’s Education Nation,

Finland & Shanghai

“During the more than two years I served as South Korea's minister of education, science, and technology, I found myself frequently astonished by the outside world's lavish praise for our education system. President Barack Obama has often noted in speeches the enthusiasm of Korean parents for their children's education, the high quality of Korean teachers, the number of learning hours that Korean students spend, and the outstanding educational achievements these have produced; for example, top rankings in international academic-achievement tests, and low rates of school dropouts and juvenile delinquency. As reported, in particular, Korean students ranked first in reading, first in math, and third in science in the Program for International Student Assessment among the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that participated. While many may look with envy at these achievements, I could not conceal my bewilderment at the fact that, within Korea, that same education system has been called the nation's biggest problem.” ~Byong-man Ahn

Source: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/12/16ahn.h31.html

Education in the Republic of Korea: National treasure or national headache?

Link: http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/oecd/

Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education !A video series profiling policies and practices of education systems that demonstrate high or improving performance in the PISA tests

“In today’s global economy, countries need high-quality education systems that will teach their citizens the skills necessary to meet the challenges of tomorrow. This series of videos, produced jointly by the OECD and the Pearson Foundation, highlights initiatives being taken by education authorities around the world to help school students do better.”

Teachers: Special but Shadowed• SABER-Teachers

• TALIS, the first International Summit on the Teaching Profession

• McKinsey and Company report

• The MET (Measures of Effective Teaching) project - The Gates Foundation

The key points• A change of mechanism in the global

governance of teachers.

• Despite tendency for convergence among global teacher policy entrepreneurs, there are important differences between them and the national settings they seek to influence.

• Limits and possibilities of governing at a distance, & contradictions inherent in neoliberal framings of teacher policies.

Professor Susan L. Robertson Professor, Sociology of Education

University of Bristol

• Part 1: A change in mechanism ~ How do Robertson’s views on global governance fit with Appadurai’s ideas on globalization as “flows and disjunctures”?~ Who decides the what, how, and to whom of what should be taught? What are your views on how this should be different? ~ What do you think Robertson’s means by “field of symbolic control”?~ Why do you think these multinational cooperations and foundations are interested in having a say in education policy, especially on teacher policy?

• Part 2: Differences among global teacher policy entrepreneurs ~ What are the differences between strategies used by OECD, the World Bank, and other pedagogical agencies (corporate philanthropy, consulting firm) described in the article? ~ What are the paradoxes described by Robertson?~ In your opinion, why are teachers silenced in the new (global) governance? ~ What are the social justice implications for teachers and students in national settings facing the new mechanisms of global governance of teachers?

• Part 3: Limits, possibilities, & contradictions in the new global framings of teacher policies. ~ Who is most governed by those international agendas as described in the article?~ What roles do teachers play in this global process? Where is their voice? ~ What does the author mean by “We have all seen the changes that can occur in national systems, not because they did not have a good system but because they did not have the right one” (p. 603)?

What is the main argument of the article?