Reconfiguración reciente de la interfaz de relación entre investigación educacional y política educativa en Chile (2000-2010)

본 연구에서는 정부의 교실혁명과 교육자치를 통한 교육개혁 정책에 따른 정부출연 교육연구기관의 연구 방향을 탐색하고자 한다. 정부출연 교육연구기관과 시도교육청 교육정책연구소에서 수행된 연구의 비교 분석을 위해 한 정부출연 교육연구기관과 13개 시도교육정책연구소에서 최근 5년간 발간된 연구 보고서를 발행 연도, 연구 영역, 주제, 세부영역, 학교급, 위탁여부, 지역특수성, 수행 형태 기준에 따라 비교 분석하였다. 분석 결과에 따르면 두 기관의 설립 목적과 특징에 따라 수행 연구 영역, 주제, 범위, 형태, 방식 등에 차이를 보이고 있으며, 지방 교육자치 정책에 따라 시도교육청의 교육정책연구소에서는 자율적이고 보다 실천적이며, 지역성과 현장성이 강한 정책 연구가 수행되고 있으며 각 지역 연구소의 위상과 제도적 여건에서 차이가 있어 정책 연구네트워크를 구축하여 지역 간 공동연구를 통해 연구 역량을 강화하고 한계를 극 복하고자 한다. 중앙 차원에서 연구가 수행되는 정부출연 교육연구기관은 전국교육청 정책연구네트워크와 협의체를 구축하여 공동연구를 추진한다면 지역교육청과 학교 현장의 자료 수집 및 현장 접근성이 높아지고, 현장성이 강한 교육 연구 수행이 가능하게 되며, 현장의 참여와 피드백이 활성화되어 실질적이고 지역별 실정에 부합되는 교육 정책 방안이 마련될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.The purpose of this study is to seek for the future directions of educational research of government-funded research institutes in accordance with the new government s educational reform policy focusing on local education autonomy. For this purpose, we examined the educational research outcomes of a government-funded educational research institute(GFERI) and the research institutes affiliated to local offices of education(LOERI). A comparative analysis of the research reports by LOERI and GFERI was done with a total of 683 research reports published by 13 regional educational policy research institutes and 1,023 reports published by the GFERI. The published reports were analyzed according to publication year, category, theme, school level, research type, and research focus. Classification by publication year shows that the number of research reports decreased in GFERI while LOERI increased the number of research reports. It is also revealed that there is a big gap among the LOERIs; while the least number of studies are 4 research report, the largest number of studies are 151. 317 out of 1,023 reports by GFERI were in the teaching and learning field; 296 reports were in the field of curriculum and textbook, and 262 reports were studies on assessment. 437 cases out of a total of 683 research reports by the regional educational research institute were categorized as ‘local research issues’. The comparison between the LOERI and GFERI shows that the most significant difference lies in local issues, and one common area is learning and teaching improvement. It implies that local educational policy research institutes has conducted research on various regional areas(regional school policy, school administration, local educational policy etc.) to meet various local needs, while the GFERI has done educational research at the national and international levels with focus on curriculum, evaluation, and teaching and learning. In the school level classification, the studies dealing with all elementary, middle, and high schools outnumber the other types of research. It is found that local research institutes did more studies at the kindergarten level than GFERI. In the comparison according to regional specificity, it is found that GFERI focuses on policies and educational issues at the central level, while the LOERI conducted studies on region-focused issues. The scope of GFERI research goes beyond the domestic to the global level. While the staff member of GFERI were conducted studies, teachers and university professors joined research as external co-researchers in the regional educational policy research institutes. According to the new government’s local education autonomy policy, LOERIs are expected to carry out autonomous, more practical and field-based policy research in accordance with the policy of each provincial office of education. Recently, a network of regional education policy research institutes has recently been established to carry out joint research among regions to strengthen the capacity of individual research institutes and to overcome the limitations or local constraints. It is necessary for GFERI as a government-funded research institute, to carry out studies with local research institutes to meet needs from local areas across the country. Efforts needs to be made to seek effective ways of doing research in collaboration from selecting research topics, and collecting data and analyzing to proposing educational policies. A consultation body can be established to enhance collaboration among institutes. Such collaboration is expected to support and bring about an effective implementation of the new educational policy with focus on local education autonomy.

This is a comparative study of the education research policies in several countries and international organizations. The purpose of the comparison is to discover the trends in this field. Four dimensions are used for education research policy: the aims of education research, the promoted research methods, the priority areas in education research, and databases for education research. These dimensions need direction and support from government. The findings are that public interest is pursued by education research institutes. However, any research result that runs counter to current policies will be suppressed. Stakeholders, such as sponsors, researchers and journals, do not take public interest as their main concern. The most promoted method in education research is evidence-based research because it is thought to be more useful and reproducible. The priority area for education research, however, is not so evident. But basic research and new areas, like neuroscience and popular culture, are more common. There are databases for education research in many countries. PISA of OECD is the most conspicuous one in recent years. Education research and educational policy is interwoven together. Education research can contribute to educational policy, while educational policy many direct the orientation of education research. Each should have the other in mind.

In this report, CPRE researchers explore how Common Core knowledge and influence are distributed inside of schools and how these configurations may help teachers to engage with the Common Core and influence their understanding and implementation. To do so, we used a mixed-method approach to examine knowledge and influence in eight schools, including five elementary schools and three middle schools. Our central method was a survey of knowledge and influence of all faculty members in a sample of eight schools. These data are supplemented with interview data from a purposeful sample of teachers and administrators in the eight schools. Sponsored by the General Electric Foundation, which also provides support to New York City through its Developing FuturesTM in Education Program, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) at the University of Pennsylvania has examined Common Core implementation in New York City in a series of studies. In 2013 CPRE released the findings of two investigations, one which described how the district constructed the 2011-12 Citywide Instructional Expectations (CIEs) for teachers, which were a small number of assignments for school faculties to complete during the school year to facilitate their engagement with the new Common Core (Supovitz, 2013). The second report examined how a diverse sample of 16 schools understood and implemented these CIEs and how their choices influenced their levels of engagement (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan, 2013). A third report is a companion to the current report, focusing on teacher collaboration as a means of cultivating and transferring knowledge about the Common Core. Disciplines Curriculum and Instruction | Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Educational Methods | Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration | Elementary Education and Teaching | Secondary Education and Teaching | Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Comments View on the CPRE website. This working paper is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/12 CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION From the Inside In: An Examination of Common Core Knowledge and Communication in Schools Jonathan Supovitz Ryan Fink Bobbi Newman W O R K I N G PA P E R March 2014 GE Foundation Developing FuturesTM in Education evaluation series About Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) brings together education experts from renowned research institutions to contribute new knowledge to inform K-12 education policy and practice. Our work is peer-reviewed and open access. CPRE’s member institutions are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Northwestern University. Since 2010, CPRE has conducted the external evaluation of the Developing FuturesTM in Education program for the GE Foundation. In addition to this report, CPRE recently published an evaluation on the impact of the Developing FuturesTM in Education program on mathematics performance trends in four district. About GE Foundation and the Developing FuturesTM in Education Program For more than 50 years, GE Foundation has invested in education programs based on a fundamental premise: A quality education ushers in a lifetime of opportunity, which helps build a strong and diverse citizenry to work and live in an increasingly competitive world. The GE Foundation believes that a quality education can help prepare young Americans — especially those in underserved urban districts — for careers in a global economy. The GE Foundation is addressing this education imperative by supporting high-impact initiatives that improve access to, and the equity and quality of, public education. The Developing FuturesTM in Education program is one such endeavor, created to raise student achievement through improved mathematics and science curricula and management capacity in schools. The program has been expanded with a grant investment of over $200 million in seven targeted U.S. school districts. School districts use their grants to develop a rigorous, system-wide mathematics and science curriculum and provide comprehensive professional development for their teachers. Working with the GE Foundation, districts have made more efficient management of human resources using GE’s Six Sigma, developing educational leaders to coach others and model best practices, implementing GE’s process management tools, and developing IT systems and capacity to use data to better inform decision making. More recently, with GE Foundation leadership, partner districts have increasingly focused on implementation of the new Common Core State Standards.

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.

Purpose: Through combing the 40 years’ history of the development of Chinese educational policy research, this article attempts to sort out the efforts and lessons learned by researchers in the field of education policy in China. Design/Approach/Methods: As one of the earliest scholars engaged in the study of Chinese education policy, based on the academic publications, symposia, and thematic research, the author has found efforts in four directions in the field: proposals for policy-oriented research and research-oriented policy, disciplinization-based endeavors, empirical research on theory-guided educational policy, and guidance on major educational policy research topics and a think tank for educational policy decisions. Findings: This article argues that there is now a correspondence among the ideas, themes, forms, and frameworks of the educational reform promulgated by the government in recent years that have appeared in educational policy research, but there is no clear demarcation of what makes an educational policy researcher; no stable academic community has been formed that might strive together toward the foundation of a disciplinary paradigm, the rational organization of academic ideas, and the establishment and handing over of a theoretical framework to a succeeding generation. Originality/Value: This article takes a step back to claim that a paradigm for Chinese educational policy research is still nascent in the arduous process of formulation.

The Politics and Economics of Comparison

A study of education policy research at the Brookings Institution

Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education

L'objectif des auteurs de cet article est double. Il s'agit d'une part de presenter une etude exploratoire sur les tendances actuelles temoignant de l'emergence d'un nouvel activisme non gouvernemental dans le champ de l'education et d'autre part de dresser un cadre analytique afin d'evaluer l'importance de cet activisme, en elaborant des concepts bases sur les recherches ayant porte sur les nouveaux mouvements sociaux et les debats theoriques actuels a propos de la societe civile mondiale.

This article analyzes the rise of PRolicy (Public Relations public policy), as it relates to educational policy, by examining the first Reagan administration and its use of media manipulation to shape public perceptions of its educational policy agendas. The article explores how PRolicy shapes both educational policy and strengthens borders and uses the legacy of the first Reagan administration as an example that continues to affect current educational policy. The article concludes with a discussion of PRolicy and implications for educational policy researchers, teachers, and administrators.

Education is a prime terrain for the transmission, facilitation, development and production of knowledge. This is a truism bordering on platitude. Universities, in particular, are literally defined in terms of the generation of knowledge. Given the intimate relationship between education and educational institutions, on the one hand, and epistemology and knowledge, on the other, it should come as no surprise that the decolonization discourses around provincialization of (Western) education should have come to include talk of provincialization of (Western) epistemology. My aim in this short contribution is to interrogate assertions regarding the “(de)provincialization” and/or “(de)colonization” of knowledge and epistemology in education and educational research and to investigate whether the postcolonial ideas of diverse and local epistemologies do not involve a mistaken sense of ‘epistemology’. I argue for an applied epistemology for the real world: that there are good reasons for an unequivocal and context-sensitive (albeit not context-relative) understanding of knowledge and epistemology in education and educational research – and for being able to distinguish between knowledge and non-knowledge. Geographic, ethnic, racial and gender-based differences do not constitute relevant criteria for any such demarcation. Instances in which they are cited as criteria raise questions not of epistemological relevance but rather of social justice.

Despite the strong relationship between geography and education policy, educational research tends to draw from other fields of inquiry such as economics, political science, and history. This special topics collection centers the usefulness of geography and place in educational policy research. The introduction explains the rationale for the collection and discusses the themes and articles in the collection. We conclude with a call for researchers, policy makers, and colleges of education to enhance their capacity in incorporating geographic thinking into educational policy research.

Objectives This study examined the educational policy research based on the theory of new institutionalism and analyzed the trend of educational policy research applying the new institutionalism perspective from 2013 to 2021 to provide the direction of future educational policy research. Methods For this purpose, 58 studies using the new institutionalism perspective were selected as the subjects of analysis through three stages of literature research method and the trends were analyzed by opening related research materials. In the first stage, the analysis criteria were selected by examining the preceding studies related to the trend of education policy research applying new institutionalism. In the second stage, the related papers were investigated with the keywords ‘new institutionalism’ and ‘education’, and then the educational policy research materials were classified according to the analysis criteria. In the third stage, each research was analyzed according to the analysis area and standards. Results As a result of the study, educational policy research applying the theory and concept of new institutionalism has been actively conducted so far, and there have been many studies using integrated analysis frameworks emphasizing interest in institutional change and the role of actors. In terms of research topics, 58 papers from 2013 to 2021 were conducted evenly in the whole of educational policy studies based on new institutionalism. In terms of research methods, educational policy research has been conducted mainly on literature research, and qualitative research has gradually increased since 2013, but the proportion of quantitative research and mixed research has been relatively low. Conclusions The new institutionalism theory can be a useful approach to analyze educational policy, and it can increase the explanation power of the theory if it is applied to the education policy research after highlighting the issues of the analysis theory by grasping the issues and limitations of the theory.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Teachers and principals have the greatest impact on student learning. Unfortunately, our public education system, until recently, selected and tenured thousands of ineffective teachers and principals particularly in high-poverty urban school and rural schools. But the landscape of how teachers and principals—the education talent—are managed is dramatically changing. A comprehensive and holistic view of strategic talent management in education is developing, supported by new and ambitious federal and state policies and rapidly changing local practices. Strategic talent management is an approach that manages all human resource programs—recruitment, selection, placement, development, evaluation, tenure, promotion, dismissal, and compensation—around a set of effectiveness metrics that capture instructional practice and student-learning growth. This brief is derived from Getting the Best People into the Toughest Jobs: Changes in Talent Management in Education written by Allan Odden (published by the Center for American Progress), which examined the evolving landscape of talent management in education. Disciplines Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration | Performance Management | Urban Education Comments Note: This CPRE Policy Brief diverges from past formats and conforms to a new brief standard of 2 pages for quick reading and ease-of-use. PB #14-1 View on the CPRE website. This policy brief is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/1 August 2014 PB #14-1 Teachers and principals have the greatest impact on student learning. Unfortunately, our public education system, until recently, selected and tenured thousands of ineffective teachers and principals particularly in high-poverty urban school and rural schools. But the landscape of how teachers and principals—the education talent—are managed is dramatically changing. A comprehensive and holistic view of strategic talent management in education is developing, supported by new and ambitious federal and state policies and rapidly changing local practices. Strategic talent management is an approach that manages all human resource programs—recruitment, selection, placement, development, evaluation, tenure, promotion, dismissal, and compensation—around a set of effectiveness metrics that capture instructional practice and student-learning growth. This brief is derived from Getting the Best People into the Toughest Jobs: Changes in Talent Management in Education written by Allan Odden (published by the Center for American Progress), which examined the evolving landscape of talent management in education. Getting the Best People into the Toughest Jobs: Changes in Talent Management in Education HISTORICAL LOOK Talent management, or lack thereof, in education at the close of the 20th century was limited to “personnel administration” and did not distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers or principals, emphasize recruitment or rarely made use of dismissal practices since the process was costly and rarely successful. COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE An impetus for change in schools’ approach to talent came from private sector which propelled the concept that “talent mattered.” In response, new federal and state human-capital management policies and local practices emerged. FOUNDATION OF CHANGE The reform rumblings and collaboration among the national foundations, progressive superintendents and other reform groups and organizations—Teach For America, The New Teacher Project, New Leaders, and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)—began coalescing into a wave of change over talent and its management, which more leaders were conceding was critical to the successful implementation of all other education reforms. These talent reformers across the country, had the financial backing of many of the largest foundations, and were addressing what was becoming recognized as a core education reform issue: educator talent and its strategic management. ROLE IN CURRENT EDUCATION POLICY The transitional shift to a new world of talent management in education has led to new channels for recruiting better talent into U.S. schools, and new methods for evaluating teachers. States and districts are using these new methods to determine tenure promotion, pay, and dismissal—instead of seniority. How strategic talent management came to “top” the education policy agenda: ­O