Transpacific Curriculum History: Undoing the Citational Practice of Global Whiteness in Education Reforms

What Does Globalization Mean for Educational Change? A Comparative Approach

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.

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

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

Education has long been characterized as a central requirement for national economic development and political democratization in the contemporary world. Moreover, international benchmarking has been identified as the “basis for improvement. . . . It is only through such benchmarking that countries can understand relative strengths and weaknesses of their education systems and identify best practices and ways forward” (OECD 2006, 18). Statements such as this example signal an international consensus that has emerged— at least among “developed” countries—about the legitimacy and, even more so, the necessity of international testing and national assessment. As David P. Baker and Gerald K. LeTendre (2005) observe, both international testing and national assessment are linked to efforts to reform educational systems and are often themselves stimuli for further cycles of reform. The results of international testing, they note, will fuel further interest in national assessment. Here we develop an argument about the global forces that have led to the explosive growth of national educational assessment and international testing. In particular, we argue that the international acceptance of testing comes from key ideological forces in the world polity that are associated with the accelerating globalization of national and international cultural, economic, and political structures. As we develop and warrant this argument, we also qualify it by pointing out that national adaptations to this larger world culture may vary depending on the presence and capacities of international organizations and regional associations that act to mediate and adapt these changes to conditions in individual countries. In addition, we consider the effects of subnational movements in introducing pressures for change that may favor more national assessment.

Critical White studies (CWS) refers to an oppositional and interdisciplinary body of historical, social science, literary, and aesthetic intellectual production that critically examines White people’s individual, collective, social, and historical experiences. CWS reflexively assumes the embeddedness of researcher identities within the research, including the different positionalities of White researchers and researchers of Color within White supremacy writ large as well as whiteness in the social sciences and curriculum theory. As an expression of the historical consciousness shift sparked by anglophone but also francophone African-Atlantic and pan-African intellectuals, CWS emerged within the 20th century’s emancipatory social sciences tied to Global South independence movements and Global North civil rights upheavals. Initiated by cultural studies theorists Stuart Hall and Dick Dyer in the early 80s, CWS has proliferated through two waves. CWS’ first wave (1980–2000) advanced a race-evasive analytical arc with the following ontological and epistemological conceptual-empirical emphases: whiteness as hegemonic normativity, White identity and nation-building, White privilege and property, and White color-blind racism and race evasion. CWS’ second-wave (2000–2020) advanced an anti-essentializing analytical arc with pedagogical conceptual-empirical emphases: White materiality and place, White complexities and relationalities, Whiteness and ethics, and social psychoanalyses in whiteness pedagogies. Always controversial, CWS proliferated as a “hot topic” in social sciences throughout the 90s. Regarding catalytic validity, several CWS concepts entered mass media and popular discussions in 2020 to understand White police violence against Black people—violence of which George Floyd’s murder is emblematic. In curriculum theory, CWS forged two main “in-ways.” In the 1990s, CWS entered the field through Henry Giroux, Joe Kincheloe, Shirley Steinberg, and colleagues who advanced critical whiteness pedagogies. This line of research is differently continued by Tim Lensmire and his colleagues Sam Tanner, Zac Casey, Shannon Macmanimon, Erin Miller, and others. CWS also entered curriculum theory via the field of White teacher identity studies advanced by Sherry Marx and then further synthesized by Jim Jupp, Theodorea Berry, Tim Lensmire, Alisa Leckie, Nolan Cabrera, and Jamie Utt. White teacher identity studies is frequently applied to work on predominantly White teacher education programs. Besides these in-ways, CWS’ conceptual production, especially the notion of “whiteness as hegemonic normativity” or whiteness, disrupted whitened business-as-usual in curriculum theory between 2006 and 2020. Scholars of Color supported by a few White scholars called out curriculum theory’s whiteness and demanded change in a field that centered on race-based epistemologies and indigenous cosmovisions in conferences and journals. CWS might play a role in working through the as-of-yet unresolved conflict over the futurity of curriculum theory as a predominantly White space. A better historicized CWS that takes on questions of coloniality of power, being, and knowledge informed by feminist, decolonial, and psychoanalytic resources provides one possible futurity for CWS in curriculum theory. In this futurity, CWS is relocated as one dimension of a broad array of criticalities within curriculum theory’s critical pedagogies. This relocated CWS might advance psychoanalytically informed whiteness pedagogies that grapple with the overarching question: Can whiteness and White identities be decolonized? This field would include European critical psychoanalytic social sciences along with feminist and decolonial resources to advance a transformative shift in consciousness.

"The Door Opens and the Tiger Leaps": Theories and Reflexivities of Comparative Education for a Global Millennium

This theoretical article critically reflects on critical whiteness studies (CWS), particularly addressing the critique that CWS does not have racial theory and therefore cannot be considered a theoretical framework in which to analyse race. Reflecting on existing literature that interrogates whiteness in teacher education; we contend that to centre racial justice in education research a critical study of whiteness must be employed, drawing from the work of scholars of Colour. Therefore, we provide a variety of transdisciplinary theories from critical scholars and scholars of Colour – from conflict theory to racial psychoanalysis – to undergird the analytic framework of CWS. We also offer implications of a critical study of whiteness approach to education research, hoping that it not only combats whiteness in society and education but changes the way we conduct research.

L'auteur se livre ici a une reflexion personnelle sur les institutions de l'education et sur ce que peut et devrait etre le champ qui mene a l'etude de l'education contemporaine, mais revient aussi sur son experience et ses rencontres personnelles avant de se lancer dans un historique comparatif.

Globalization and Citizenship Education in Hong Kong and Taiwan

Cabrera described the development of Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS), in particular within higher education scholarship, as a complementary response to Critical Race Theory (CRT). Specifically, if CRT work in higher education offers a deep analysis of the harm of systemic racial marginalization on BIPOC communities (effect), then CWS explores the inner working of Whiteness that led to this racial harm (cause). However, there is contemporary concern that CWS is evolving into more of a space for White people to explore Whiteness without directly linking it to anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, anti-Brownness, and anti-Asianness, essentially an inversion of the original problem (cause without effect). Therefore, I am proposing a CWS moving ahead that explicitly merges both lines of inquiry so that CWS offers the underlying structures and mechanisms of racial marginalization (cause) coupled with the material consequences of this on BIPOC communities (effect).

Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) can be a significant tool to dismantle white supremacy in educational contexts. However, the authors argue that without attending to the forms of curriculum as they are entangled across systems of schooling, CWS can reinscribe the very forms of whiteness it seeks to disrupt. Identifying as a queer, Brown assistant professor of education and a Black undergraduate student who recently finished her studies, this paper uses a duo-ethnographic approach to examine what the authors call an “enacted curriculum of whiteness.” Through their respective narratives, the authors explore how students and faculty bracketed CWS, often identifying CWS as a part of the formal curriculum while using the enacted curriculum to defend and maintain normalized racism. The authors argue that alongside CWS in teacher preparation, an emphasis on curriculum studies is critical to resisting the “nice white lady” phenomenon that often infects teacher preparation and, eventually, K-12 schools.

There are significant inequalities in the lives of America’s children, including inequalities in the education that these children receive. These educational inequalities include not only disparities in funding per pupil but also in class size, teacher qualification, and resources such as books, labs, libraries, computers, and curriculum, as well as the physical condition of the school and the safety of students within it. While not all schools attended by poor children are bad schools, and not all schools attended by well-off children are good schools, there are clear patterns. Poor children are more likely to attend crowded and poorly equipped schools with less qualified teachers than the children of more affluent families. They are less likely to have computers, books, and advanced placement academic courses. To give one example of the differences in school resources, the wealthiest districts in New York spent more than $25,000 per pupil at the same

The study of policy in comparative education has been approached using methods associated with the principal social science disciplines that have informed the field since its inception. In particular, the disciplines of history, political science, sociology, and anthropology have had a significant influence on determining the acceptable methods for comparative educational policy analysis, as evident by studies of policy published since the mid-1990s in Comparative Education Review. Given the multidisciplinary orientation of comparative education, it is curious that the discipline of linguistics remains virtually absent from the pages of the field’s flagship journal. This dearth is particularly anomalous today when one considers the interest in critical inquiry as a framework for interpreting the discursive aspects of knowledge production. Such interest makes it an opportune time to consider how one type of linguistic analysis—critical discourse analysis (CDA)—could enhance the comparative study of educational policy. The field of policy studies is a particularly fruitful area in which to explore the critical strand of discourse analysis because policies are, by definition, texts imbued with authority. Broadly constructivist in methodology, CDA asserts that knowledge is socially constructed and shaped by relations of power that are both material and discursive. It rejects the premises of structuralism and, instead, embraces the view that certain meaning systems—or discourses—are privileged by their relationship with dominant groups in society and are, themselves, constitutive of social relations (Rogers 2004). Policies, according to Stephen Ball, are particularly important expressions of social power in that they convey the values of authoritative actors and institutions whose particular forms of knowledge about the social world are reflected in these texts. Ball (1990, 17) utilizes a Foucauldian notion of discourse to explicate this power/knowledge relationship: “Power and knowledge are two

The Politics and Economics of Comparison