Search results

This chapter presents a very broad synopsis of the intensification of education governance. It opens by narrating the multifaceted nature of governance and in what way it has developed as the axiom for professed policy problems that national educational systems are experiencing. The chapter chronicles the amplification of education governance and it explicates the metamorphosis and myriad typographies that “governance” has taken in responding to perceived endogenous and exogenous policy problems. It explains how managerialism and neo-corporate reforms sought to destabilize the activities of education governance and the results. In making this argument, it suggests that new public management policy prescriptions in education were part of the earliest form of disruptive innovation in education. It advances that educational managerialism, in hollowing out national educational systems, has generated the perfect breeding ground for the rise of newer modus operandi (or modes, styles, and arrangements) that governs and regulates education systems through the use of different techniques and mechanisms. The second half of the chapter discusses five different modus operandi that are inchoate in the post-managerialist era and highlights that in education, we have progressed beyond the movement from government to governance across national education systems and these systems are now employing additional modes of governance (vertical and horizontal) across different scales. The chapter concludes by drawing on the concept of a “Wicked Problem” (an unsolvable or difficult problematic, that is, fluid, paradoxical, and unfinished) to insinuate that education governance is an example of a wicked problem that has been and continues to be shaped by the ideological contours of endogenous and exogenous policy influences.

As the international society faces unprecedented challenges associated with resource scarcity, governance scandals, increasing injustice and inequality, new opportunities for higher education institutions are emerging. This paper aims to investigate the association between national governance standards and education quality across nine western European countries, namely, the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland.

Using panel data from 2002 to 2017, this paper uses fixed-effects and random-effects models to examine the relationship between national governance (proxied by voice and accountability (V&A) indicator) and education quality (proxied by human development index: education index). This analysis is supplemented with conducting instrumental variable (IV) estimations to address any concerns regarding the expected occurrence of endogeneity problems.

The findings are suggestive of a significant and positive relationship between national governance and education quality in Europe. This implies that national governance standards, such as V&A, are essential actors in the enhancement of the quality of educational institutions’ outcomes.

Policymakers should implement stricter regulations and ensure that accountability indicators are motivated if they wish to increase the spending on education, which is associated with better qualities of educational institutions. A culture of continuous review of education policies needs to be upheld in the Western Europe region to be watchful of any emerging problems while maintaining a sustainable relationship between the rule of law and the education administration.

So far, a minimal number of studies focussed on examining the role of country-level governance in advancing education quality. This study, therefore, extends the body of prior literature by investigating the possible effect of national governance structures on education quality across a sample of Western European countries.

Education and education policy have been set up and run under the control of the nation-state since the origins of modern education systems. Thus, national education systems have been exposed to strong political and normative control from the very beginning. The analytical perspective on issues concerning political regulation and governance of education systems was for a long time state centered and norm oriented. Even if this is still true to a varying extent in many countries, we recently witness a shift in the examination of issues concerning educational governance. This chapter examines educational governance with respect to the topical discourse in Germany and identifies significant actors, governance instruments, and governance practices. It points out that the appearance of new instruments of educational governance coincides with and supports an emerging governance model in the educational field: evidence-based education policy. Drawing on empirical findings from an international comparative project at the University of Tuebingen,11The international comparative project was partly funded by the Hans-Böckler Foundation. The project goals were to reconstruct the concept of lifelong learning with respect to its political and empirical aspects and to examine its implementation into national and international monitoring and reporting systems on education and training. The project was based on the theoretical approaches of path-dependent development and actor-centred institutionalism both emanating from political science. Using this theoretical framework, OECD's and EU's educational policies and activities with respect to monitoring lifelong learning have been analyzed and compared to demonstrate their adoption among differently structured national systems (Germany, Finland, and Greece) and to comment on their influence upon the evaluation, design, and governance of national education systems. The methods applied were document analysis, expert interviews, and meta-analysis of educational monitoring and reporting systems. Germany, the chapter focuses on educational monitoring and reporting as new instruments of educational governance, reveals their impact, and claims that the new governance instruments are based on knowledge and expertise.

Tertiary education in the Anglophone Caribbean, particularly in Jamaica, has become highly competitive and complex and increasingly influenced by global neoliberal discourses. This free-market driven development is partly evidenced by the proliferation of national, regional, and international providers. Yet, within this seemingly unrelenting international influence, one can also detect more recent approaches by regional governments in concert and individually, through policy and systems of governance to reassert their sovereignty and retain some level of regulation and ownership of tertiary education. This chapter establishes an analytical framework for understanding these tertiary education governance changes by drawing on the principles of critical educational policy analysis. The chapter scrutinizes the multiple sources of power, international, regional, and national, that shape the rapid ongoing tertiary educational changes. Ultimately, the chapter argues that Jamaica’s tertiary education governance can be categorized as a shift from the governance mechanisms of “growth driven” to “regulatory control.” The chapter further posits that future regional shifts in tertiary education governance will be shaped by the continuing postcolonial struggles to adapt to the global order while protecting regional and national interests and aspirations.

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.

Today, the global education market is one of the faster growing sectors, and it has attracted several new actors or what we call educational brokers who are now responsible for shaping national agendas. The newer actors in education are vastly different for the former players in that whereas previous actors engrossed national educational systems through the provision of technical assistance to meet international standards, best practices, and benchmarks, these newer players are for-profit entities that emphasize austerity, leanness, human resource maximization, performance targets, and competition. Therefore, in this new educational landscape, national governments are seen as “clients” who receive “expert” advice from “external consultants” that have an assortment of experiences across different sectors. Education governance is no longer a statist endowed but one that incubates in laborites of best practices resonates with existing case studies and results driven based on Big Date collected. We argue that educational brokers are responsible for the emergence of a hybrid form of education governance that use business and market techniques to reform strategies within the education sector. We conclude by suggesting that collectively educational brokers are using what we call “educational sub-prime mechanisms” – higher interest rates, reduced quality collateral, and less advantageous terms to counterweight higher credit risk – to manage educational portfolios and newer forms of educational risk.

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.

This chapter presents and discusses the value of cultural political economy (CPE) as a theoretical framework for the analysis of the international governance of education. CPE is situated historically as a contemporary example of attempts within the Marxist tradition to explore the relations between the cultural (the world of discourse and practice), the political (actors and institutions), and the economic. The chapter builds on the developed account of CPE to address the challenges presented by the European Union (EU) as an example of international governance. Established accounts of the development of an EU role in the governance of education since the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in March 2000 are examined so as to establish what a CPE approach can offer to attempts to complement and transcend them. In conclusion, the chapter acknowledges the aspects of CPE that remain undeveloped and problematic as well as underlining the terms upon which the CPE as presented here might need to engage with other theoretical approaches.

This article results from a survey on national and international research articles published from 1947 to 2018 that aimed to produce a theoretical framework and description of education governance.

The study was based on bibliographic research techniques. Its bibliometric analysis (Pritchett, 2001) focused on three structural indicators: 1) keywords, 2) most relevant journals and 3) most productive researchers. A survey was made targeting national and international research articles on education governance published from 1947 to 2018 as available on Scopus.

The survey pointed out the fundamentals of the education governance dimensions as posited in Hufty’s (2011) Governance Analytical Framework, namely: problems, social norms, actors, nodal points and processes.

The study provides the theoretical framework for establishing operational definitions of aforementioned dimensions that can be used in an education governance assessment instrument.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and assess the role played by university governance in the effectiveness and efficiency of the higher education system through literature analysis and the management evaluation method of Organization and Methods (the O and M technique) and argue for a more radical change in, and greater scrutiny of, university governance so as to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of university operations and thus yield a more optimal satisfaction of social needs.

The paper employs the O and M technique in order to investigate and assess the role played by university governance in the effectiveness and efficiency of the higher education system.

The “objective” is education and knowledge and there is no room for experimentation in the system. The higher education sector does not need experiments to develop further. Rather, it deserves cautious, creative and innovative consideration and needs a very distinctive treatment of national problems. No matter the policy orientation of the system, higher education policy makers should not forget that higher education has a tremendous influence on peoples’ attitudes and beliefs so the focus should be on the actual knowledge on social responsibility and on the commitment of higher education to serve social interests and needs.

The analysis developed in this study would benefit from a deeper exploration by investigating more numerous and diverse examples from the international arena of higher education.

This study acts as a complement to previous research on higher education governance since it develops further the analysis and the understanding of university governance. By using as examples two countries with different orientation in their higher education system (mainly due to differences in cultural and ideological perceptions) and keeping in mind that there is no ideal model for university governance, this study could enlighten decision makers in any country to develop a more effective and constructive model of university governance that would serve societal interests more effectively.