Global influences and national education policy: perspectives from Croatian pre-service and primary education teachers

With the release of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 results in late 2004, Finland became the focus of international admiration. Soon after the study’s release, scholars, journalists, and government officials from around the world flocked to the small Nordic nation in search of the “secret” of its educational accomplishment (Asahi News 2002). While Finland enjoyed international acclaim, Japan—the former exemplar of educational excellence—was in the midst of serious soul-searching about its own educational system. The Japanese “academic achievement crisis debate” (gakuryoku teika ronsō) erupted in the late 1990s, generating a national moral panic over declining academic performance (see Takayama 2007). The PISA 2003 results were released at the peak of this controversy, and Japan’s “drop” in ranking in some areas from PISA 2000 to PISA 2003 led many observers to believe that the suspected scholastic crisis had been confirmed (see Takayama 2008c). In the aftermath of the PISA shock, Japanese journalists, scholars, and government officials followed the international trend, traveling to Finland in search of the Finnish secret (Fujita 2005). Meanwhile, various Japanese professional educational associations invited Finnish education scholars and former and incumbent ministers of education to learn from the world’s best education system (Asahi News 2005b; Tanaka 2005b; Kitagawa 2006 In addition, many individuals, organizations, and publishers were quick to capitalize on the “Finnish boom” (Watanabe 2005, 12). Tatsuo Kitagawa, formerly of the Japanese embassy in Helsinki and presently the chairperson of the Finnish Method Promotion Association (Finrando Mesoddo Fukyū Kyōkai) translated a series of literacy textbooks used in Finnish schools, selling more than 100,000 copies (Yomiuri News 2007b). Kitagawa and other experts

The paper re-reads the complex and changing relationships between the university and the nation-state, and between national and supranational (EU-level) educational policies in Europe. It is focusing on long-term consequences of globalisation-related pressures on European nation-states with respect to national educational policies. It assesses the indirect impact of globalisation on European universities (via reformulating the role of the nation-state in the global economy), and a direct impact of Europeanisation – as a regional response to globalisation – on universities (via new EU-level discourse on the changing role of universities in knowledge economy). New educational policies promoted at the EU-level are viewed as de-linking the nationstates and public universities. The paper re-reads the changing institution of the nation-state and its changing educational policies in the context of globalisation (sections 2 and 3) and in the specific, regional context of Europeanisation (section 4). It follows from presenting three major positions taken in the literature with respect to transformations of the nation-state under globalisation to presenting the process of de-linking traditional universities and the nation-state and its practical dimension at the EU level at which the role of universities is viewed from the perspective of larger social and economic agenda (called the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs). The major lesson to be drawn from this re-reading exercise is that there are complex and often contradictory relationships between globalisation as a process affecting the nation-states, changing national educational policies, and national and EU-level policies – which all transform the future role(s) of European universities. In sum, current challenges European universities face, and current policy solutions European governments suggest, are best viewed in the overall context of globalisation. National governments are responding to both globalisation and Europeanisation: policies and strategies they produce, instruments they use, and contradictions they cope with are best re-read in this context.

The Government of India published, after independence, nation’s third policy on education on July 30, 2020. This policy on education titled as “National Education Policy- 2020” (NEP-2020). This much anticipated education policy is a widespread policy covering all level and aspects of education of the country. Part ‘Two’ of NEP- 2020 covered the area of higher education and detailed about the expectations in this area. For an economically developing country like India, where the demand for a quality skilled workforce is very high it becomes necessary to keep a check on the quality of education provided in the higher education system. Assessment plays a crucial role in improving the quality of education by giving feedback. Normally assessment is done as objectives of education are formulated. Any teaching-learning process is incomplete without a proper assessment mechanism. National Education Policy- 2020 is expecting and suggesting fundamental change in the traditional assessment system in higher education. This paper is an attempt to explore the important recommendations made by National Education Policy- 2020 on ‘Assessment’ in the area of higher education.

The trends of globalisation have had unavoidable impacts in steering and guiding the decisions of national policy-makers and the direction of national education policies. In the obscuring processes of supranational homogenisation of education and educational policy, supranational regimes, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU), play a significant role. The traditional idea of meritocratic competition is challenged by globalisation and by the new standard setting of the supranational organisations, and nation-states are losing their power to define standards and to control the key features of educational selection. The process is proceeding particularly in the field of higher education, where the stakes to win reputational capital are at their highest. The message, objectives and language of those organisations are cast in the same mould. They have started to speak in the same words with the same stress, repeating the same phrases about globalisation, economic efficiency and productivity, and swearing that globalisation is inevitable in the name of progress. In this article, historical change in the educational policies of the OECD and the EU and the implication of these policies for national education policies are studied. Special emphasis is laid on the field of higher education and the national case of Finland.

This article discusses the analysis of the existence of Islamic education in the national education system in the aspect of the education budget related to the study of Islamic education policies in Indonesian legislation. This study uses a qualitative approach with a qualitative descriptive type of research through a literature research study method. This encourages the need for the reconstruction of national education system policies in the budgetary aspect of educational institutions globally. This article analyzes that the existence of Islamic education in Indonesia in the national education system is a subsystem in national education, but it has not received the same attention as other education sectors. So this study criticizes the need for the reconstruction of national education system policy regulations on the aspects of the education budget in Indonesia and the solution to the existence of Islamic education in the national education system in the aspect of the education budget in Indonesia as an effort to reconstruct education policies in Indonesia offered by the author and input in the preparation. The education road map program in Indonesia by Commission X DPR RI on the direction of education development is the first, the concept of education equilibrium. The government issued a policy to equalize the education budget globally to end the dichotomy of education budget policies so far so that the existence of Islamic education is equal to the existence of other general education. Second, the separation between national education policies and political interests through the appointment of the minister of religion and the minister of the Ministry of Education and Culture-Research and Technology with professional figures is not based on entrusted elements from supporting parties/coalitions.

This article analyzes PISA’s impact on China’s education policy. This is done by analyzing the reports related to PISA released by the ministry of education of the Republic of China. This study aims to demonstrate how Chinese government utilizes the PISA result to support the previous dicisions about education policy or to identifies problems existing in the national education system? The analysis shows that PISA mainly impact China’s education policy in five ways: (1) PISA is considered as an external but legitimate barometer to measure the national education system (2) PISA is used as a reference to make technical improvement to the national educational system (3) PISA is used to generate evidence for existing policies. (4) PISA is used to find out future required development in the national education system. (5) PISA is helping to create a new international identity for the country which is one of the main goals of the ongoing educational reform. Thus, the analysis shows that the PISA result is used to support some existing policies and to improve the country’s political situation. However, it does have a substantial impact on the national educational policy, especially in the assessment area.

Introduction: Moral degradation remains a major challenge in education, requiring effective strategies for character building. Various approaches, such as religious teachings, curriculum reforms, and arts-based methods, have been implemented, yet their effectiveness varies depending on context and institutional support. This study examines the effectiveness of reward and punishment strategies in shaping student character within an Islamic boarding school setting. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the role of reward and punishment in character development and analyze its integration with national character education policies and Islamic values. Methods: A qualitative descriptive research approach was used, employing field research methods such as observations, interviews, and document analysis. The study was conducted at Pondok Pesantren Darussalam, Martapura, South Kalimantan, involving school administrators, teachers, students, and parents. Results: Findings indicate that the structured implementation of reward and punishment significantly improves discipline, motivation, and ethical behavior among students. The system is designed through a three-stage process: planning, execution, and evaluation. Additionally, it aligns with national education policies and Islamic teachings, ensuring a holistic and culturally relevant approach. Conclusions: The reward and punishment strategy serves as an effective tool for character development, provided it is implemented ethically and fairly. While challenges remain, such as ethical considerations and psychological impacts, the study highlights its potential in fostering moral and academic growth. Further research is needed to refine and optimize this approach in different educational contexts.

This paper examines an important aspect of India’s national education policies: the aims and goals stated in the national educational policies of independent India. To set the background, a brief account is given of the history of national education policies when education was broadly managed by states, and continues to be so. India’s national educational policies are evolutionary in nature due to which their goals change perceptibly depending upon the context and democratic polity (political party in power), particularly at the Centre. The National Policy on Education 1968 aspired to build the education system of Independent India that India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru envisaged—an educational system that lead to a socialistic pattern of society in which no one person or entity dominates in the affairs of the working of the society, promotion of national integration and establishing a national system of education. Considerable progress has been made in this regard in both school and higher education, and economic and cultural development of the country. The first two policies and the impact they had on the largest young democracy in the world needs different theoretical tools.

This study aims to comparatively examine national strategic higher education policy initiatives of selected OECD countries attracting a large number of international students. As an example of a multiple-case study, the study group comprised Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The data were the official strategic education policy documents of these countries and obtained from the official government websites of these countries. The qualitative thematic analysis method was employed to analyze the data. The study concluded that visa and employment convenience, expanded national scholarship opportunities, advertisement and promotion of higher education, accreditation/recognition-related strategic policy initiatives, government and third-party partnerships, and strategies to enhance student well-being were the main themes observed in the national higher education policy documents. Analyzing the common similarities and tendencies in top-ranked OECD countries' national strategic higher education policy initiatives, this study offered a visionary perspective for other countries to revise or redesign their national education policies to attract more international students in the future.

The 21st century has seen changes in migration patterns in Europe with implications for schooling and civic education: movement from eastern and central European Union member states to western Europe; increased movement between member states for study or work; and growth in the numbers of migrants and refugees seeking asylum in Europe as a result of regional conflicts and global inequalities. This article reviews European standards and policy frameworks on education and migration and considers whether they translate into policy and practice at national and sub-national levels. It identifies tensions between European standard-setting in the field of human rights and democracy, and the responsibilities of national governments in the field of migration and education, specifically education for citizenship. While European rhetoric emphasises democracy and human rights, national education policies stress language acquisition and national values in the integration of newcomers. Less attention is given to educating mainstream populations in human rights and social justice, or in enabling students to recognise and critically examine populist and anti-democratic discourses. National and European education policies that purportedly promote justice may fail to realise inclusive and cohesive citizenship if they acknowledge changing demographics but neglect everyday injustices and European histories of racialisation and racism.

The relevance of conducting a detailed analysis of global trends in higher education and their reflection in the national educational policy today is due to a number of important factors. Monitoring global trends is important because they identify new challenges and opportunities for national education systems. Firstly, in connection with the growth of global competition in the labor market, national systems of higher education must adapt to international standards and requirements in order to prepare graduates who will be competitive on the world stage. Global technological and economic trends require higher education to constantly update programs to provide graduates with up-to-date skills. Secondly, understanding global trends in higher education is important for building an ef­fective national education policy. Modern challenges, such as the international mobility of students and scientists, call for the development of strategies that promote interaction with other countries and the implementation of the best global practices in domestic educational systems. Thirdly, due to the diversity of cultures and languages, the globalization of higher educa­tion requires the development of strategies that will promote cultural diversity and intercultural understanding among students and teachers. Thus, a thorough analysis of global trends in higher education and their impact on domes­tic educational policy becomes strategically important for national governments and educational institutions. The introduction discusses the importance of understanding and taking into account global trends for modernizing domestic educational strategies. It is noted that global transformations create a need to harmonize domestic policies with the requirements of the modern world. Next, the article examines in detail the impact of globalization on the competitiveness of higher education. The factors that determine the quality and development of education in the national context are studied, in particular, how global competition affects the choice of students and the attractiveness of higher education institutions. In addition, the article considers the prospects of modernization of domestic educational policies in the conditions of globalization. Special attention is paid to the need to adapt programs, structures and training methods to international standards and expectations. The conclusions summarize the main conclusions regarding the importance of adapting domestic educational policies to global trends to ensure the sustainable development of higher education and the training of competitive personnel on the international labor market.

Legislative statements on marine education and training policy are directed only to science, scientific and technical manpower. There is no comprehensive statement of national marine education policy which embraces all national needs, including an informed public. Studies and policy papers are being prepared in cooperation with educators in all regions of the nation with the objective of developing a national statement on marine education adequate to all marine needs. INTRODUCTION The title of this paper implies that we do not have a national marine education policy enunciated at an appropriately high level of the Executive Branch. The implication is accurate. We do not have a comprehensive policy, either formal or unwritten. We do, however, have legislative pieces of a policy. The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act and the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 made it a national objective to educate and train marine scientists and other specialist manpower, with the educational mission assigned to the Sea Grant Program. The legislation also created a Presidential Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, which became known as the Stratton Commission. The Commission recommended creation of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as a separate agency. President Nixon preempted the action and created NOAA within the Department of Commerce, and Sea Grant was transferred from the National Science foundation to NOAA. Some of the Stratton Commission's specific recommendations have been followed, but not the one on manpower. The Commission recommended that NOAA be assigned the responsibility "to help assure that the nation's marine manpower needs are satisfied and to help devise uniform standards for the nomenclature of marine occupations." The Commission also recommended that NOAA, and specifically Sea Grant, "expand its support for ocean engineering and marine technician training at all levels and that it aid selected universities in organizing graduate-level education in the application of the social sciences to marine affairs." The Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 placed a somewhat broader educational mission on the Sea Grant Program by stating as an objective for Sea Grant: "providing assistance to promote a strong educational base" and by provision for a Sea Grant fellowship program. The appropriations act which followed made it even sharper by specifically appropriating funds to be used for education over and above what NOM had requested. The effect of all this legislative background is that the basis exists for a national marine education policy and program if the Executive Branch can be persuaded to pay attention to the will of the Congress and to state an Executive Branch policy. This has not yet happened. LEGISLATION IS NOT ENOUGH The Stratton Commission had recommended that NOAA set up a manpower office, and the legislation was at least permissive, but NOAA did not do so, nor did NOAA or the Department of Commerce pay any serious attention to the educational component of the Sea Grant Program.

ABSTRACTWhile a number of studies have established the growing role impact PISA has had on national education policy, much less is known about the global-local recontextualization of policy transfer, and the role of national policy officials. Through interviews with key policy officials in Norway and New Zealand, the study revealed a growing cosmopolitanism in outlook in both countries with strong indications of changes made to respond to PISA data. However, officials also reasserted the strengths of their national education system and worked to enrich OECD understandings of educational quality. Theorizing through Bourdieu, the authors propose that the concept of cosmopolitan capital provides a useful analytical tool to explain increasingly outward and globally-oriented practices and dispositions held by policy officials within a global education policy field.

There exists today a critical discourse on educational policy, as it has evolved alongside dominant notions of development and its critique. This dominant notion of development emerged following the Second World War. At that time, the global order was characterized by a cold war, with its bipolar division of a “First World” and a “Second World,” based on ideological grounds. There emerged simultaneously, a conglomerate of countries referred to as the “Third World,” sharing a common colonial past, located mostly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and viewed to be in need of development. Underdevelopment in these countries was a construct—understood as descriptive structural features of poverty, illiteracy, traditional orientation, among others. Economic growth and modernization were the prescribed measures for development—as if the “Third World” would progress by following the structural features of more “evolved” Western countries. Education was an important tool in this project, responsible for creating the appropriate civic attitudes both for modernization and for stimulating economic growth. The human capital theory was an economic variant of the ideas of modernization—it underscored the notion that investments in education were akin to physical capital; these would yield future benefits to society. There was an abundant desire amongst the political elites of these newly independent countries to provide for mass education as a way of liberation and progress. National education policies, and systems to implement them, were set up incorporating these ideas. Leading international organizations—such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN Development Programme (UNDP), later the World Bank, and now the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), helped translate these ideas into policy choices and influence agenda setting for educational policy. By the 1990s, there was abundant critique of modernization as development and of national systems of education as systems of power bereft of normative ideas about the intrinsic value of education. This gap was filled by the capabilities approach enunciated by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. The capabilities approach argues that the ends of development are not simply economic growth, but the expansion of opportunities and substantive freedoms. Education is intrinsic to the development of capabilities and for substantive freedoms. Since the 1990s, the capabilities approach and the human development paradigm have been guiding influences in development policy and education. Education policies influenced by the human development paradigm recognize the complex challenges poor people face and do not advance a fixed template of policy prescriptions in the name of development. Following the Education For All conference in 1990 and, a decade later, the adoption of Millennium Development Goals in 2000, there have been significant efforts, on a global scale, toward converging the educational policy ideas and actions of international agencies and national governments. Simultaneously, the expansion of globalization on an unprecedented scale now influences education policy in unanticipated ways, as the nation-state declines in importance. In an era of global governance, transnational policies on education that emphasize learning achievements, benchmarking, and testing are gaining currency. National education systems may no longer matter. Globalization, especially its alliance with neo-liberalism, also finds strong criticism from social movements and from scholars who question development, argue in favor of post-development, and call for respect and recognition of diversity of competing epistemes of learning.

This article examines government power over elementary and secondary education policy in Canada and the United States. The study distinguishes between federal government policy and national policy that results from subnational governments adopting similar policies voluntarily. The analysis identifies factors that encourage development of national education policy. Federal policy appears to have greater potential for success than national policy due to federal resources and enforcement authority. However, there are constitutional constraints on federal power over education in Canada, and political and technical constraints in both countries. Subnational governments in both countries actively safeguard federalism and protect their autonomy. The study indicates that subnational commitment is essential for the success of both national education policy and federal education policy. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.