Search results

This chapter reviews the changing contours of education governance in today’s global environment in which governments participate in different educational agreements across various levels (supranational and global) or what is identified as the rise of “educational multistakeholderism.” Methodologically it draws up discursive evidence from previous studies in the form of a content analysis to show how the expansion of international regimes (institutions) into new issue areas, such as education, creates an overlap between the elemental (core) regime and other regimes. In exploring how regime theory has been applied to comparative and international education, this chapter draws attention to how new regimes and institutions arise and coexist alongside two or more classes (civil society, nongovernmental, intergovernmental, businesses, and state) of actors and its consequences for education governance. It suggests that regime complex(es) in education, which aims to facilitate educational cooperation and are composed of assemblages from several other regimes, are responsible for governing, steering, and coordinating education governance activities through the use of agreements, treaties, global benchmarks, targets, and indicators. It concludes by suggesting that regimes and regime complex(es) in education are constituted by different types of multistakeholder governance.

With the advent of the fourth industrial revolution and the intelligent economy, this conceptual chapter explores the evolution of educational governance from one based on governing by numbers and evidence-based governance to one constituted around governance by data or data-based educational governance. With the rise of markets and networks in education, Big Data, machine data, high-dimension data, open data, and dark data have consequences for the governance of national educational systems. In doing so, it draws attention to the rise of the algorithmization and computerization of educational policy-making. The author uses the concept of “blitzscaling”, aided by the conceptual framing of assemblage theory, to suggest that we are witnessing the rise of a fragmented model of educational governance. I call this governance with a “big G” and governance with a “small g.” In short, I suggest that while globalization has led to the deterritorializing of the national state, data educational governance, an assemblage, is bringing about the reterritorialization of things as new material projects are being reconstituted.

Peru’s recent macro-economic success has not translated into significant changes in the capabilities of the state to shape economic activities like Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) through specific policies, even though the country has drafted a national action plan, Agenda Digital del Perú, with stakeholders’ participation, as well as a National Broadband Plan. While there are some state programs that have been considered successes and are potentially examples for Peru and the region, the intent of having a full set of “information society” policies, as in the European Union, has failed.

The paper explores two sets of issues: the diffusion of internationally sourced policies and the capabilities of governments to impact the use of ICT. In the Peruvian case, the state has not been capable of both designing its own set of policies while still following the lead proposed at international fora. To understand the lack of success, it is necessary to differentiate between the shortcomings of local policy-making and the international agenda. Policy makers’ insistence on an “information society” approach is particularly prominent, as the term has been ever present as a policy objective while still lacking actual meaning.

This paper will explore the role of policy-making and the failures of digital policies. It will also consider the contradictory nature of a policy-making process that privileges policies stemming from international bodies over locally driven understandings of ICT policy needs.