Who produces ‘Global’ education policy knowledge? Epistemic communities, networks, and power in global education governance

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.

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

The multiple processes of globalization of the 1990s have drastically changed the context in which governance of education takes place, altering the relationship between sovereignty and territoriality in the education policy development, and transforming education policy spaces, content, and the governance processes, actors and structures. Over the past decades, scholars have tried to explore new frameworks through which to examine the current complex field of power relations in education, and specifically to understand better the role of intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations in it. In the context of the historical turn for international cooperation characterized by the efforts of achieving Sustainable Development Goals, this understanding could be instrumental for finding effective solutions to educational challenges, and for re-orienting educational policies in the light of sustainable development. Proposing innovative theoretical and methodological frameworks which required an interdisciplinary approach which draw from international relations theories, political economy, philosophy, pedagogy, sociology, and global education studies, applying the global governance theory to education, the research aims to investigate the complex landscape of the global governance of education, focusing on the role of intergovernmental organizations in it and, in particular, it examines the evolution of priorities of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the agenda-setting process. By means of a mix methodology of content and discourse analyses, the main political and flagship publications of UNESCO are studied throughout a period that begins in 1990 and extends until 2017, since this timeframe encapsulates the timeline of particular international education agendas (Education for All and Sustainable Development Goals) and is marked by the rise of globalization and its effect on the governance of education. The research identifies the evolution of UNESCO?s role in the global governance of education connecting it with the endogenous and exogenous changes of the period selected; it explains how a specific mechanism of agenda-setting has gained relevance in UNESCO?s global governance role; and it illustrates the dialectic relationships between UNESCO?s priorities and those of the global education agendas that the Organization has helped shape. In so doing, this exercise could be useful as it not only provides a fresh outlook on the ways in which education governance can be analysed in contemporary interconnected world, but it also creates new perspectives for studying the role of intergovernmental organizations in global education policy. The findings of this research are a fresh contribution to the field that could be also utilized by governance actors such as UNESCO in order to reflect on, review and problematise their positioning within global governance.

International Organizations, the "Education-Economic Growth" Black Box, and the Development of World Education Culture

International Organizations, the “Education–Economic Growth” Black Box, and the Development of World Education Culture

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.

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.

The Politics and Economics of Comparison

International organisations’ (IOs) legitimacy in global educational governance is commonly seen as a function of their regulative or normative power. By contrast, this paper stresses the increasing importance of scientific research and policy-relevant knowledge and its strategic production, dissemination and transfer by IOs. The article examines knowledge work at OECD, UNESCO and World Bank based on novel data from publication analyses, archival work and a number of interviews. Drawing on sociological institutionalism and constructivist international relations scholarship, this study is interested in the rationales, resources and capacities for knowledge production, the strategies of dissemination and transfer as well as the implications of science production for IOs’ position and relevance in global governance. Findings emphasise the authority of science as the primary source of legitimacy – and even survival – in an increasingly crowded and competitive field of global education governance.

The World Bank and Education: Governing (through) knowledge

Since the reform and opening up, China has gradually embarked on the journey of participating in global education governance while systematically promoting the cause of opening up education to the outside world. Expanding the opening up of education to the outside world, contributing to China’s educational experience and wisdom, and enhancing the international voice of education are the realistic demands for China to actively participate in global education governance and promote the reform and improvement of the global education governance system. However, China still faces many challenges to further promote global education governance, i.e., the environment is becoming more and more complex, the ability needs to be improved, and dilemma are becoming more and more prominent. Facing the future, the participation of China in global education governance must be rooted in the profound connotation of the era, uphold the philosophy of “a community with a shared future for mankind”, participate in the formulation of international education rules, enhance in-depth cooperation with international organizations, focus on the cultivation of global education governance talents, and strengthen the construction of think tanks of global education governance, so as to play an important role in promoting and even leading the reform of the global education governance system.

The PISA test is fundamental to understanding how the concept of educational quality is operationalized, carrying significant normative influence in the global education arena. Beyond its technical function, PISA has become a powerful political tool, establishing the OECD as a central actor in global education governance. This paper uses critical discourse analysis to examine how Agency in the Anthropocene: Supporting Document to the PISA 2025 Science Framework negotiates the tension between two seemingly opposing educational rationales. While existing research has noted PISA’s shift from a focus on human capital and economic growth to broader goals of social inclusion and sustainable development (in line with SDG 4), this paper identifies a further mutation: a growing emphasis on student agency in the Anthropocene aimed at enabling systemic change. This shift leverages global concerns about environmental and social crises to reinforce PISA’s relevance and OECD’s authority in measuring educational quality. The document embraces ecosystemic perspectives and a social reconstruction rationale, framing students as agents of change in addressing climate and economic inequalities. However, despite its progressive discourse, it does not fully abandon the entrenched logic of social efficiency that links quality education to strong PISA performance. The paper concludes with recommendations for aligning OECD practices with its stated vision.

In recent years, international organisations have played a key role in global educational governance, significantly influencing national educational policies worldwide. For this reason, historians of education have manifested a growing interest in the origins and mechanisms that support and extend this phenomenon. In this article, we trace how this research has enabled the field of the history of education to leverage its key strengths and contribute to understanding the ‘global architecture of education.’ First, we examine the adoption of international, global, and transnational perspectives by historians of education and argue that these perspectives can enrich the understanding of global education research. Then, we focus on the 1950s–1970s in Spain, a period reflecting the dynamics and mechanisms that led to international organisations having stronger influence on educational decision-making in the country.

The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted global education, leading to a surge in online education, a pressing need for global online educational resources, a balanced focus on K12 and higher education, widespread adoption of new technologies in education, and rapid development of specialized education platforms. These changes have posed numerous challenges and triggered multidimensional transformations in educational philosophies, models, assessment methods, teaching resources, and the integration of education with new technologies. Additionally, the formation of an international educational community and the reconstruction of educational ecosystems have become key considerations. To address these challenges, this paper proposes the rapid transformation of educational concepts, from traditional views to a future-oriented perspective that caters to the unique learning needs of each individual, enabling education that is accessible, continuous, and personalized through leveraging advanced technologies like the Internet, big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. The paper also suggests increasing investment in educational resources, enhancing network infrastructure and facilities, improving top-level designs for educational resources, promoting international exchanges and resource sharing, and establishing a comprehensive policy and guarantee system to tackle the structural insufficiency of high-quality educational resources. Furthermore, diversified teaching methods, such as blended learning and flipped classrooms, are proposed to meet the diverse learning needs. The paper emphasizes the importance of enhancing teachers' information technology application capabilities to align with the developmental needs of schools. It also advocates for increased participation of China in global education governance and the promotion and implementation of innovative Chinese educational ideas on a global scale. Initiatives such as leading post-pandemic global education and education informatisation plans are suggested to drive the formulation of relevant standards, international conventions, and the advancement of domestic education governance, thus enhancing China's contributions and influence in global education governance.

This chapter focuses on a new school-level instrument for international benchmarking and policy learning – the OECD’s PISA-based Test for Schools (“PISA for Schools”) – and how it helps to constitute new global spaces and relations of education policymaking and governance. Unlike main PISA, PISA for Schools assesses school performance in reading, mathematics, and science against the schooling systems measured by the main PISA test. Schools are thus positioned within a globally commensurate space of measurement and comparison, and are encouraged to engage with, and learn from, the policy expertise proffered by “high-performing” international schooling systems and the OECD itself. Drawing suggestively across literature and theorizing around new spatialities associated with globalization, the “becoming topological” of culture and “power-topologies,” and informed by document analysis and interviews with 33 policy actors from across the PISA for Schools policy cycle, the chapter examines how PISA for Schools helps the OECD to directly “reach into” local schooling spaces. This respatialized PISA for Schools, or “PISA to Schools”, provides the OECD with the means to influence how schooling is practised and conceived at the level of local policy implementation, while limiting mediation by national and/or subnational politics. Moreover, the school-to-system performance comparisons enabled by PISA for Schools arguably provide one of the first – if not the only – international data-driven catalysts of school-level reform. This furthers the relevance and diffusion of “lessons” from main PISA and the OECD to schools themselves, and helps extend the epistemic communities through which the OECD practices its global epistemological governance of education.