Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science Studies 2019

Globalization, Education, and Comparative Policy Studies

Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Columbia University, New York, USA Professor Antoni Verger, Autonomous University, Barcelona, Spain

Course dates: 22 - 26 July 2019

Limitation: 25 participants

Main disciplines: Educational Science, Political Science, Sociology

Course credits: 8 ECTS

Apply now


The seminar guides doctoral students in their endeavor to review, apply, and critically reflect on relevant theories and debates in globalization studies from an international comparative perspective. A special focus will be placed on the comparative study of global education policies, in particular, on the reception and translation of such “traveling reforms,” the role of international comparison for global norm setting and “soft governance, national pathways to adopting global education policies, and the growing influence of multinational businesses and philanthropies in shaping educational reform. 

Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi will guide the students for the entire duration of the summer school course. From Monday through Wednesday, she presents several sociological frameworks that lend themselves for the study of globalization. She also presents her own work on policy transfer, cross-national policy borrowing, and transnational accreditation in public schools.

Professor Antoni Verger, guest lecturer for four of the ten sessions (Thursday and Friday), will discuss the shift from government to governance and several global education policies in depth, notably, test-based accountability reforms, public-private partnerships, and privatization.

This year, one full session is reserved for discussing the uses of social network analysis for analyzing the interrelationships between policy actors and institutions, in particular, the nexus between private and public actors, and the intersection between local and global policy discourses. The session of social network analysis is co-taught by Professors Steiner-Khamsi and Verger. In general, the students in the class are encouraged to discuss the applicability of the various interpretive frameworks and methods for their own work, and selectively adopt and use them for their own dissertation research.

Even though the examples deal mostly with education policies, most of the theories and the debates may be useful for public policy studies in general.

Students are expected to read 2-3 texts in details for each lecture/session and read the rest only cursorily. Upon completion of the summer school course, students are encouraged to choose a topic for their seminar paper that relates to their own research.

The course is structured in interactive lectures/power point presentations followed by discussions on how the reading relates to current debates as well as to students' own dissertation research.


Course Outline

Lecture 1: The Policy Process: Rational, Political, Social, Economic, and Global Frames

The first session consists of an overview of several perspectives/frames that are applied for the study of the policy process: the rational, political, social, economic, and global frames. In addition, the first session introduces two widely referenced theories in public policy studies: Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Multiple Streams Framework. In an attempt to explore under-studied aspects of the policy process, the lecturer presents her own classification of theoretical concepts taking into account transnational networks and global actors.

Recommended reading

Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (2003). Agenda-Setting: Policy determinants, policy ideas, and policy windows. In M. Howlett and M. Ramesh, Studying Public Policy. Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, pp. 120-142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 189 – 220. Boulder: Westview.

Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36 (4), 615–635.


Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta‐Review. Policy Studies Journal44 (1), 13-36.

Lecture 2: Theories I: Governmentality, Managerialism and the Role of the State

Session 2 starts out with a reflection on the changing role of the state in agenda setting, policy formulation, and policy evaluation drawing on Foucault’s concepts of governmentality. The shift from government to governmentality, first described by Foucault, has been applied to educational studies by scholars such as Jenny Ozga (“governance by numbers”), Stephen J. Ball (“network governance”), or Christian Maroy (“theory of the post-bureaucratic state”). We will reflect on how the shift is reflected in quasi-market models in education and what it entails of global education policies.

Recommended reading

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, eds, The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality, pp. 87-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ball, S. J. and Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, New Governance and Education, pp. 19 - 46. Bristol: Policy Press.

Lubienski, C. (2019). Advocacy Networks and Market Models for Education. In M. Parreira do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi, and C. Thompson, eds., Researching the Global Education Industry, pp. 69-86. New York: Palgrave.

Alawattage, C. and Elshihry, M. (2017). The managerialism of neoliberal global governance. In A. Littoz-Monnet, ed., The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations. How International Bureaucracies Produce and Mobilize Knowledge, pp. 166 - 186. London: Routledge.

Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24 (2), 261-272.


Maroy, C. (2008). The New Regulation Forms of Educational Systems in Europe: Towards a Post-Bureaucratic Regime. In N. C. Soguel and P. Jaccard, eds., Governance and Performance of Education Systems, pp. 13–33. New York: Springer.


Robertson, S. L. and Verger, A. (2012). Governing education through public private partnership. In S. L. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger and F. Menashy, eds., Public Private Partnership in Education. New Actors and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World, pp. 21-42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lecture 3: Scientific Advice in Policy-Making

There is a vast body of critical literature on the intersection of politics and science and more specifically on evidence-based policy planning. In the wake of evidence-based policy planning, “what works” analyses, results-based aid/disbursement and randomized controlled trials have gained monumental status. The third session reflects on this trend and also investigates how the politicization of science and, vice-versa, the scientization of politics, has impacted the policy process in actual practice. 

 Recommended reading

Christensen, J., and S. Hesstvedt (2018). Expertisation or Greater Representation? Evidence from Norwegian Advisory Commissions. European Politics and Society 20 (1), 83‒100.

Eyal, G. (2013). For a Sociology of Expertise: The Social Origins of the Autism Epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118 (4), 863-907.

Maasen, S., and P. Weingart, eds. (2005). Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-making. New York: Springer.

Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41 (3), 179‒194.

Marques, M., M. Zapp, J. J. W. Powell, and G. Biesta (2018). Continuity and Change in Educational Research: Comparing Educational Research Contents in Germany, the UK, Norway and the EU, 1994‒2015. In M. Zapp, M. Marques, and J. J. W. Powell, eds., European Educational Research (Re) Constructed, pp. 167‒187. Oxford: Symposium.


Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The concept of evidence in evidence-based practice. Educational Theory, 61 (5), 515-532.


Oketch, M. (2019). Randomized Controlled Trials: limitations for explaining and improving learning outcoes. In R. Gorur, S. Sellar, and G. Steiner-Khamsi, eds., Comparative Methodology in the Era of Big Data and Global Networks, World Yearbook of Education 2019, pp. 35-52. London and New York: Routledge.

Lecture 4: Governance by Number, International Comparison and Transnational Regimes (e.g., OECD)

The fact that an ever-increasing number of educational systems participate in international large-scale student assessments such as OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), have their students tested more frequently and at different stages, has triggered an avalanche of analyses. The fourth session explores reasons for engagement with international large-scale assessments, including the global move towards “test-based accountability” (Verger) and the “symbolic transnational accreditation” value of PISA (Steiner-Khamsi).

Recommended reading

Addey, C., Sellar, S., Steiner-Khamsi, G., Lingard, B. and Verger, A. (2017). Forum discussion: The rise of international large-scale assessments and rationales for participation. Compare, 47 (3), 434 – 452.

Sellar, S. and Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40 (6), 917-936.

Espeland, W. (2015). Narrating numbers. In R. Rottenburg, S. E. Merry, S.-J. Park, and J. Mugler, eds., The World of Indicators. The Making of Governmental Knowledge through Quantification, pp. 56-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Piattoeva, N., Gorodski Centeno, V., Suominen, O., and Rinne, R. (2018). Governance by data circulation? The production, availability, and use of national large-scale assessment data. In J. Kauko, R. Rinne, and T. Takala, eds., Politics of Quality in Education. A comparative study of Brazil, China, and Russia, pp. 115-135. New York: Palgrave.

Gorur, R. (2016). Seeing like PISA: A cautionary tale about the performativity of international assessments. European Educational Research Journal, 15, 598 – 616.


Gorur, R. (2015). Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education36 (4), 578–595.

Verger, A., and Parcerisa, L. (2018). Test-based accountability and the rise of regulatory governance in education: A review of global drivers. In A. Wilkins and A. Olmedo, eds., Education governance and social theory: Interdisciplinary approaches to research, 139-158, London: Bloomsbury.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2019). Conclusions: What Policy-Makers Do with PISA. In F. Waldow and G. Steiner-Khamsi, eds., Understanding PISA’s Attractiveness. Critical Analyses in Comparative Policy Studies, pp. 233-248. London: Bloomsbury.

Lecture 5: Institutionalist Theory, Transnational Regimes and Global Scripts

Arguably, institutionalist theories lend themselves for a reflection on why national systems adopt international knowledge, beliefs and standards and what role international organizations play in propelling such international scripts.  Both the Stanford University variant of neo-institutionalist theory is discussed (John W. Meyer and his associates) as well as modifications associated with the Scandinavian school of historical institutionalism. The reading for this session also includes two texts (Dale 2005, Steiner-Khamsi 2012) that critically reflect on neo-institutionalist theory.

Recommended reading

Zapp, M., Helgetun, J. B. and Powell, J. J. W. (2018). (Re)shaping educational research through “programmification”: Institutional expansion, change, and translation in Norway. European Journal of Education, 1-16. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12267.

Bromley, P. and Meyer, J. W. (2016). Hyper-organization. Global organizational expansion, chapter 3, pp. 61 - 92. London: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, J. W. (2002). Globalization and the Expansion of Standardization of Management, chapter 2. In Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson and Lars Engwall, eds, The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, flows, and sources, chapter 2. Stanford: University of California Press.

Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (2005). Translation Is a Vehicle, Imitation its Motor, and Fashion Sits at the Wheel. In Barbara Czarniawska and Guje Sevón, eds, Global Ideas. How Ideas, Objects and Practices Travel in the Global Economy, pp. 7 – 12. Malmö: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.

Alasuutari, P. and Alasuutari, M. (2012). The domestication of early childhood education plans in Finland. Global Social Policy, 12 (2), 129 – 148.

Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. In W. Streeck and K. Thelen, eds., Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, chapter 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K., eds. (2009). Explaining Institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agncy, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

See also critiques:

Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and Education: Demonstrating a "Common World Educational Culture" or locating a "Globally Structured Educational Agenda?" Educational Theory, 50 (4), 427 - 448.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). The global/local nexus in comparative policy studies: analysing the triple bonus system in Mongolia over time. Comparative Education, 48 (4), 455-471.

Lecture 6: Sociological Systems Theory: Externalization and Structural Coupling

There is an interesting debate in comparative education between authors writing within the interpretive framework of (neo-) institutionalism and those with an affinity to system theory. The main tenets of the controversy will be discussed. Key concepts of system theory, in particular externalization and structural coupling, will be explored and subsequently applied to shed light on three issues: (i) lesson-drawing, externalization, and references to “best practices” as a policy tool, (ii) structural coupling between two function systems, notably between the economy and education (public-private partnerships in education) and between science and politics (evidence-based policy planning).

Recommended reading

Andersen, Niels Å. (2000). Public Market – Political Firms. Acta Sociologica, 43, 43 – 61.

Luhmann, N. (2010). Globalization or World society: How to conceive of modern society? International Review of Sociology, 7 (1), 67-79.

Schriewer, J. and Martinez, C. (2004). Constructions of Internationality in Education. In Gita Steiner-Khamsi, ed., The Global Politics of educational borrowing and lending, chapter 2, pp. 29 – 53. New York: Teachers College Press.

Waldow, F., Takayama, K. and Sung, Y.-K. (2014). Rethinking the pattern of external policy referencing: media discourses over the ‘Asian Tigers’’ PISA success in Australia, Germany and South Korea. Comparative Education, 50 (3), 302-321.

Steiner-Khamsi, Gita (2012). Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending. Building Comparative Policy Studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow, eds., Policy Borrowing and Lending. World Yearbook of Education 2012, pp. 3-17. London and New York.

Lecture 7: Understanding the Policy Process by Means of Social Network Analysis

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a suitable method of inquiry for exploring interrelationships between two and more actors or institutions that are connected through an activity such as, funding, participation, citation, voting, visits or other actions deemed relevant for the scrutiny of the policy process. SNA has been used in policy studies to examine the close relationship between private and public actors, between local and global policy discourse, or between science, technology, and politics. Session 7 delves into this particular method of inquiry and explores possible applications in comparative policy studies.

Recommended reading

Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., and Lubienski, C. (2014). Using Bibliometric and Social Media Analyses to Explore the „Echo Chamber“ Hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 281-305.

Mølstad, C. E., Pettersson, D. and Forsberg, E. (2017). A game of thrones: Organising and legitimising knowledge through PISA research. European Educational Research Journal, 16 (6), 869 - 884.

Baek, C., Hörmann, B., Karseth, B., Pizmony-Levy, O. Sivesind, K. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2018). Policy Learning in Norwegian School Reform: A Social Network Analysis of the 2020 Incremental Reform. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 4 (1), 24-37. DOI: 10.1080/20020317.2017.1412747 

Shields, R. (2013). Globalization and international student mobility: a network analysis. Comparative Education Review, 57 (4), 609-636.

Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., Rogan, R., and Gurney, T. (2018). Manufacturing an illusionary consensus? A bibliometric analysis of the international debate on education privatization. International Journal of Educational Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.011

Ball, S.J. (2016). Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31 (5), 549 – 566.

Recommended (for inspiration on how to use SNA for understanding key concepts in policy studies)

Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I. and Koppenjan, J. (2017). Policy learning and policy networks in theory and practice: the role of policy brokers in the Indonesian biodiesel policy network. Policy and Society, 36 (2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1321230

Lecture 8: From government to global governance: the role of international organizations in educational policy formation

Session 8 introduces the concept of global governance, and pays special attention to the role played by international organizations in the so-called ‘government to governance’ shift. We will reflect on the different governance mechanisms that international organizations (IO) activate to influence educational policy at different scales. On the basis of a case study of the World Bank, we will show that international organizations are complex entities whose agendas and modus operandi evolve due to a combination of internal and external dynamics and factors. Specifically, we argue that the education agenda of the World Bank is the result of the way the most powerful states use the IO to promote their interests and preferences; the influence exerted by the IO's bureaucracy (both at their apex and within among their technical divisions); and the way the IO interacts with both its environment and its country clients.

Recommended reading

Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (1999). The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organisations. International Organization, 53 (4), 699-732.

Dale, R. (1999). Specifying Globalisation Effects on National Policy: focus on the Mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 14 (1), 1-17

Mundy, K. and Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 9-18.

Broad, R. (2006). Research, Knowledge, and the Art of ‘paradigm Maintenance’: The World Bank’s Development Economics Vice-Presidency (DEC). Review of International Political Economy,13 (3), 387–419.

Dale, R., & Robertson, S. L. (2007). New arenas of global governance and international organisations: Reflections and directions. In K. Martens, A.

Rusconi and K. Lutz (eds).  Transformations of the State and Global Governance. 217–228. London: Routledge.

Fontdevila, C. and Verger, A. (2016). The World Bank's doublespeak on teachers. An Analysis of Ten Years of Lending and Advice. Brussels: Education International.

Grek, S. (2010). International Organisations and the Shared Construction of Policy ‘Problems’: Problematisation and Change in Education Governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.3.396

Heyneman, S. P. (2003). The History and Problems in the Making of Education Policy at the World Bank, 1960–2000. International Journal of Educational Development 23: 315-337.

Jones, P. W. (2004.) Taking the Credit: Financing and Policy Linkages in the Education Portfolio of the World Bank. In: Steiner-Khamsi, G., ed., The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending, pp. 188 - 199. New York: Teachers College Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). For All by All? The World Bank’s Global Framework for Education, In S. Klees, J. Samoff, and N. Stromquist, eds., The World Bank and Education: Critiques and Alternatives, pp. 3-20. Rotterdam: Sense.

Vetterlain. A. (2012). Seeing Like the World Bank on Poverty. New Political Economy, 17 (1), 35-58. 

Wade, R. (2010). The State of the World Bank. Challenge, 53 (4), 43–67.

Weaver, C. (2007). The World Bank and the Bank’s World. Global Governance 13, 493-512.

Lecture 9: Public-private partnerships and educational privatization reforms: Scope, programmatic ideas and impact

Education privatization is a complex process that is not always driven by policy, but by societal and structural forces. Lecture 9 shows that education privatization is a globalizing phenomenon, but advances for very different reasons and through very different political processes and policy trajectories. In the session, we also show that Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) is one of the most common policy manifestations of pro-private sector reforms in the education sector, and reflect on the effects that PPP policies (such as voucher schemes or charter schools) have for education quality and equity. To this purpose, we identify what are the social mechanisms that explain why education privatization reforms and, particularly, PPPs tend to generate more negative than positive effects in educational systems, especially when we analyze these effects from a social equity perspective.

Lubienski, C. (2006). School Diversification in Second-Best Education Markets. Educational Policy, 20 (2), 323-34

Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Multiple paths towards education privatization in a globalizing world: a cultural political economy review. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 1-31.

Recommended reading

Ashley, L.D. et al. (2014). The role and impact of private schools in developing countries. London: DFID

Levin, H.M., I. Cornelisz, and B. Hanisch-Cerda. (2013). Does educational privatisation promote social justice? Oxford Review of Education, 39 (4), 514-532

Srivastrava, P. (2016). Questioning the Global Scaling Up of Low-fee Private Schooling: the nexus between business, philanthropy and PPPs. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, and G. Steiner-Khamsi, eds., The Global Education Industry. World Yearbook of Education 2016, pp. 248– 263. London and New York: Routledge.

Verger, A., Steiner-Khamsi, G. and C. Lubienski (2017) The emerging global education industry: analysing market-making in education through market sociology. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15 (3), 325-340.

Verger, A., X. Bonal and A. Zancajo. (2016) What are the role and impact of Public-Private Partnerships in education? A realist evaluation of the Chilean education quasi-market. Comparative Education Review, 60 (2), 223-248.

Waslander, S.; C. Pater, and M. van der Weide (2010). Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education. OECD Education Working Papers 52. Paris: OECD.

Lecture 10: The Global Education Reform Movement and the international spread of standardized tests and accountability policies in education

In the last decades, most countries in the world have adopted data-intensive policy instruments that aim to modernize the governance of education systems, and strengthen their competitiveness. Indeed, instruments such as national large-scale assessments and test-based accountability systems have disseminated widely, to the point that are being enacted in countries with very different administrative traditions and levels of economic development. This presentation inquiries into the scope and the modalities of educational governance change that national large-scale assessments and test-based accountability instruments have triggered in a broad range of institutional settings. In the session, we will also reflect on the variegated effects and responses that these policies have generated at the school level. Conceptually, the session benefits from the policy enactment theory developed by Stephen Ball and his colleagues.

Recommended reading

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, (36) 5, 258-267.

Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger, eds., The handbook of global education policy, pp. 128–144. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Verger, A., Fontdevila, C.  and Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882

The lecturers

Gita Steiner-Khamsi

Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi Foto: Graduate Institute Geneva

is Professor of Comparative and International Education at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York, and Director of NORRAG. Over the next few years, she holds a dual academic appointment at Columbia University in New York (always in the fall semester) and at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva (always in the spring semester).

Prior to her appointment at Columbia University (1995), she worked for close to ten years as policy analyst in the Ministry of Education, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. She published eight books, numerous journal articles and book chapters on areas related to comparative policy studies, globalization, comparative methods, and international educational development. She has analyzed school reforms and teacher policies in North America, Europe as well as in Mongolia and in Central Asia. She is series editor of three book series in comparative education: World Yearbook of Education (Routledge), International Perspectives on Educational Reform (Teachers College Press), and NORRAG Series on International Education and Development (E. Elgar Publisher). In 2019, she published two edited volumes: Understanding PISA’s Attractiveness: Critical Analyses in Comparative Policy Studies (with Florian Waldow, Bloomsbury Publisher) and Researching the global education industry. New York: Palgrave (with Marcelo Parreira do Amaral and Christiane Thompson, Palgrave Publisher).

She is a part-time R2 Visiting Research Professor at the University of Oslo (funded by UTNAM) and is member of the research group «Policy Knowledge and Lesson Drawing in Nordic School Reform in an Era of International Comparison” (funded by FINNUT, Norwegian Research Council).

Antoni Verger

Professor Antoni Verger Foto: Educational develompment 

is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). His research focuses on the study of the relationship between global governance institutions and education policy – i.e. how education policies are internationally disseminated and enacted in concrete institutional settings, and what effects this has on education quality and equity. In recent years, he has specialized in the study of public-private partnerships and accountability policies in education.

With a cross-disciplinary training in sociology and education studies, Antoni  Verger publishes in comparative education, education policy, sociology and development studies journals. He is one of the lead editors of the book series World Yearbook of Education and the Journal of Education Policy. In terms of teaching, he is the Deputy General of Education Policies for Global Development – GLOBED, a European master programme that is offered by UAB together with the universities of Bremen, Cyprus and Glasgow.

In the past, Antoni Verger has been awarded Marie S. Curie and Ramon y Cajal grants, and has conducted research for international organisations such as UNESCO, the Global Partnership for Education, Education International and several aid agencies. Currently, he coordinates the ERC-funded project REFORMED- Reforming Schools Globally: A Multiscalar Analysis of Autonomy and Accountability Policies in the Education Sector.

Recommended reading

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18 (2), 215-228.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy Enactment in Secondary Schools. New York: Routledge.

Benveniste, L. (2002), The Political Structuration of Assessment: Negotiating State Power and Legitimacy. Comparative Education Review, 46 (1), 89-118.

Falabella, A. (2014). The Performing School: The Effects of Market & Accountability Policies. Education policy analysis archives, 22(70). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n70.2014

Gunter, H. M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy and practice. New York/London: Routledge.

Robertson, S. L. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584-607.

Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: Inconsistencies and problematic issues. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23 (1), 5–20. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9110-2.

Tolofari, S. (2005). New Public Management and Education. Policy Futures in Education, 3 (1), 75–89.

Verger, A. and L. Parcerisa. (2017). A difficult relationship:  Accountability Policies and Teachers. International  Evidence  and  Key  Premises  For  Future  Research. In M.  Akiba  &  G. LeTendre, eds., International  Handbook  of  Teacher  Quality  and  Policy, pp.241-254. New York: Routledge.

Tags: Summer School, PhD, Educational Science, Comparative Social Science, Globalization
Published Nov. 27, 2018 2:01 PM - Last modified May 20, 2019 11:20 AM