Globalization, Education Policy and the Allocation of Values

Globalization, Education Policy, and the Allocation of Values

I decided to do a google search for a word cloud based on values related to education. The results were overwhelming, to say the least. If you observe the different values in the picture above, you will see several represented. In fact, you may even see values represented that you adhere to, believe in, encourage and are eager to see displayed by others. Importantly, though, whose values are highlighted here? Whose voice is represented in these values? What discourse determined that these values are aligned to education? If you happen to visit the site you will see different interpretations of what values purportedly undergird education. The question I would ask, however, is, are these values the end goal of education? Are they attainable without education? More importantly, what does it mean to be ‘educated’? And whose definition dominates?

The way in which education and its defining values is perceived in any local space is not without external influence. Labaree (1997) points to three separate values of education as democratic equality, social mobility and social efficiency. He further notes that at different points in history, one set of values has given way to another based on the ways in which societies have interpreted developments internal and external to them.  Countries have been co-opted into a global narrative that creating certain education policies will allow the citizens of the country to compete more effectively at the global level. Stone (2001) asserts that generally, public policies in most democratic societies revolve around five key values: equity, efficiency, security, liberty and community. Though she holds a similar view to Labaree, she further indicates that these values are “often invoked as justifications for a policy, for a government action or for the government not taking action” (p. 37). Unfortunately, some of these policies are also responsible for perpetuating social inequality between and among specific groups.

More broadly, let us examine globalization and education’s space within that setting. Very often, what obtains for education in one jurisdiction versus another is dependent on a myriad of factors. Historical background, cultural, social and political milieu are critical factors that invariably shape education and its resulting practice. Globalization has become the term used as one of the primary reasons for establishing commercial links with other countries, facilitating communication, expanding educational and employment opportunities, among other things. Block (2008) suggests that globalization is an ‘ongoing process of the increasing and intensifying interconnectedness of communications, events, activities and relationships taking place at the local, national or international level’ (p. 31). There are those who argue, however, that with the onset of globalization, there are more similarities than differences with respect to education and the policies that are established to determine the frameworks that are created to accomplish specific educational goals. Globalization carries implications for particular countries based on their geographical location in relation to what is termed the ‘Global North’ as they have less autonomy in relation to the policies they are able to create and implement.

It is hard to deny then, with the current realities and buzz words such as knowledge economy and lifelong learning, that these help to shape/influence education policy and the values that are allocated/transmitted as a result. There are some who define policy as the transfer of authority, statements that are articulated or not; actions taken or not (Dye, 1992; Hogwood & Gunn, 1984). Ball (1994) describes policy as “both text and action, words and deeds…what is enacted…what is intended” (p. 10). Embedded within these definitions is the knowledge that policy transmits values, whether explicitly or implicitly and often, those values are retrofitted to suit a particular purpose (whether political, economic or social). Those purposes are also frequently determined by what is considered global best practices. A government may go in one direction with its education policy because it creates an edge for them in relation to their global partners. However, what is sometimes not considered is what is practical in terms of resources, political structures and what is involved/required for implementation. On the other hand, policy makers have to endure processes of negotiation in order to maintain particular associations or to indicate their solidarity around a cause/initiative/sentiment, even if those values are counterproductive to their own national context and needs and invariably dooming those policies to fail.

_________________________________________________________________ 

References

Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and poststructuralist approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Block, D. (2008) Language education and globalization. Encyclopaedia of             Language and Education, 1(2), 31-43.

Dye, T. (1992). Understanding public policy (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods – The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision-making. New York: Norton.

Kadia Hylton-Fraser
Doctoral Student
College of Education
Lehigh University