- Email: [email protected]
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education G E Karlsen, South Trondelag University College, Trondheim, Norway ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction The phenomenon of governance and government is normally linked to the execution of power with a legal and legitimate basis. In social science literature, government is the traditional term for steering and control. Typically, the government refers to the state, understood as the political and administrative system at the national level and in particular the executive function of the state (Ball, 1990; Dale, 1989; Kuhlne et al., 1999). The Foucauldian concept of governmentality (Foucault, 2003) has been a guiding concept for recent education policy research with focus on mentalities and rationality of governing of the state and changes over time. Governance is a more versatile term in social sciences and research corresponding to the postmodern form of economics and political actors. In particular, there is a great deal of research about European governance related to the European Union (EU; Olsen, 2002; Kohler-Koch, 2005). In the EU’s white paper European Governance, the concept of governance is defined as ‘‘rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercised.’’ Openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence are considered as principles that should underpin what is called ‘‘good governance’’ (European Commission, 2001: 11, 17). In this article, governance is used in a neutral meaning. Governance includes macro-actors and processes and relationships to and between states, regional, and local actors and markets in education policy (Lawn and Lingard, 2002). The governance in relation to teacher education also includes informal steering from nongovernmental bodies in the civil society and influence from the institutional culture in teacher education institutions (Lindblad and Popkewitz, 2001). Teacher education has a high degree of complexity and a great variety in time length, content, organization, and the degree of specialization. In fact, there are more structures than countries if we consider, for instance, Europe (Eurydice, 2002; Garm and Karlsen, 2004). If teacher education is considered to be one educational system – as a unit distinct from others – with common, distinctive traits, it is a nonexistent phenomenon in the real world. What do exist, however, are the continuous political and professional discourses regarding knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills necessary for the teacher profession and the institutions for teacher education. Historically, the structure, content, and ideology of teacher education institutions mirror the present political
532
conditions. The governance of teacher education has normally been a national issue. National teacher education and the compulsory school system are normally interlinked (Karlsen and Kvalbein, 2003). They have been and still are key institutions for socialization into the modern state. The impressive research report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005) summarize: ‘‘It is now widely agreed that teachers are among the most, if not the most, significant factors in children’s learning and the linchpins in educational reforms of all kinds.’’ Therefore, the importance of teacher education is obvious in many ways. The education system and, in particular, teacher education has historically been closely connected with nation building (Vaage, 2001). Education is a part of rights and obligations in a complex relationship between the state and the individual citizen. This is still the normal situation; however, the traditional role of national governance is being challenged by new procedures and new global actors. The territorial representative parliamentary democracy, when limited to national state agents with agreements about rules within the structure of the national state, is being challenged by globalization. Bauman (1998) claims that this threatens to make national democracy irrelevant and powerless. With this background in mind, a simple model will function as an analytical framework for the further discussion of the role of governance in teacher education.
An Analytical Model – Levels and Systems Although governance of teacher education primarily has a national mission, teacher education and its reforms are embedded in an increasingly global context. Therefore, the role of governance in teacher education has to be analyzed as an interactive process between supranational, national, and organizational (local) levels. The model is a simplification of the complexity of educational governance. Teacher education includes both the professional education system at the national level and institutions at the local level. The model shows interrelations of main actors and forces affecting governance of teacher education at and within the national level and the globalization pressure from actors at the supranational level (Figure 1). Traditionally, the nation-state has been associated with a specific geographical area, political entity, and, in addition, a cultural and ethnical unit. Political science
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
533
Globalization
• Civil society • Cultural activity • The economic system • Market activity
• Teacher education
• The political system • Political activity
The corporative system
Globalization
Figure 1 Governance of teacher education–actors and forces.
normally emphasizes the existence of a political and administrative system having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory ( Jones et al., 2004). The central base for the national state is the legal framework accompanied by a set of related political, judicial, and administrative state institutions such as the parliament, state bureaucracy, courts, and police. The school system, and in particular the teacher education, is a key institution in the state. The market, understood as rational decision making, is basically a social arrangement or a marketplace that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out voluntary exchange of goods and services. Market activity within the economic system is primarily the arena of capital connected to economic transactions. The relation between the political and the civil system and the market will vary, but the move toward the market economy has been obvious (Lavigne, 1995). Although the free-market economy is prospering, the mixed economy is still common in most of the countries, with degrees of government influence in combination of state-owned and private enterprises. The concept of civil society has had a renaissance both in political and comparative theory. Civil society normally refers to the arena of collective company and actions linked to shared interests, purposes, and values (Bron, 2001). The boundaries between state, civil society, and market are often complex and blurred. The civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that to a high degree form the basis of a functioning society (Hann and Dunn, 2006). The civil society provides rights connected to democracy, political consultation, and the development of life, within culture and religion, in or outside
institutional and organizational frames. The civil society can be understood as the glue of society. In this light, the formation of state and citizenship provides a framework for civil rights. The growth of the organizational society, particularly in the nineteenth century, contributed to the development of new cooperative structures, creating new channels for influence. Labor unions promoted right to collective bargaining and tariff agreement between their members and the employers. Within the Nordic states system, for instance, negotiations between representatives of unions and employers’ organizations gradually became a formalized decision-making channel in addition and, to some extent, as an alternative to the representative democracy (Dølvik and Engelstad, 2003). The political scientist Stein Rokkan (1987) has called this regime of governance ‘‘corporative pluralism’’ (p. 61). In relation to education, this became important because teachers created strong unions. The unions provided corporative power connected to participation in public committees, elected groups, public hearings, and, not the least, contracts about working conditions negotiated between the state and the unions. At the European level, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUCE) is an influential teacher union with a total of 60 million members. The ETUCE is the only representative cross-sectoral trade union organization at a European level recognized by the EU (ETUCE, 2006). The overall political neoliberal governance turn in the last 20 years has put both the political system and the civil society under pressure. New global ideologies, new strategies and new macro-actors are brought into force. Therefore, the governance in teacher education must be analyzed in this context starting with globalization and the driving forces behind it.
534
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
Globalization and Global Forces Globalization is normally used as an umbrella term which refers to a complexity of economic, technological, cultural, social, and political interrelationships. The notion is frequently used both as a slogan in public debate and in scientific literature (Spybey, 1996; Held and McGrew, 2000). The term globalization term can be seen as a perception about a pluralistic, worldwide postmodern period after industrialism (Giddens, 1990). Although globalization is not completely a new phenomenon, it has become the dominating contemporary diagnosis in the last twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries. There is considerable agreement among researchers that the economy is a driving force (Coulby and Zambeta, 2005). Globalization may primarily refer to a process through which national economies became increasingly open to supranational influence (Lundahl, 2005). At the core of globalization lays the new market economy with its market capitalism and worldwide economic activity. Globalization is further interpreted as a consequence of modern science and new technology, particularly in connection with information technology. Globalization has led to a flood of influences economically, environmentally, politically, socially, and culturally, which are almost impossible to protect oneself against (Mishra, 1999; Martin and Schumann, 1996). The main hypothesis is that we are forced toward standardization not only economically, but also socially and culturally. A UNESCO report, led by the former EU President Jacques Delors, proclaimed a development for this century ‘‘towards a globalization of human activity’’ (Delors, 1996: 41). Globalization is a phenomenon with consequences and influences – good and bad – also for teacher education. In particular, the themes of central control, the role of the state and teacher education as a cultural reproductive institution, create dilemmas and prospects (Thomas, 2002). The discussion surrounding globalization has essentially been linked to whether this is a desired or undesired development. On the one hand, it is claimed that globalization is necessary, inevitable, and the only possible way to get a larger degree of political and economic stability and predictability (Giddens, 2000). On the other hand, globalization is seen as a serious threat toward established order and common values. The development of antiglobalization forces has grown (Hill, 2006). The political left wing is the most obvious in alliance with environmentalists and labor unions, included teachers unions. The Education International (EI) is the world’s largest, and probably the most important, teacher union with its 345 member organizations in 165 countries and territories. The union is critical of the impact of globalization on education and perceives the neoliberal globalization as a significant risk affecting public education, restricting the available policy space for national governments (Hill, 2006).
The acronym TINA (there is no alternative) refers to the slogan attributed to the former prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, who argued that globalization with its free trade and global economy was the only way for modern states. Others have argued that the global market economy, which is adopted in most of the states worldwide, is a neoliberal political agenda rather than an inevitable choice (Negreponti-Delivanis, 2001). Therefore, we need to examine this agenda in a governance perspective. A Neoliberal Ideology and New Governance Strategy The overall neoliberal turn can be perceived as a renewed ideology and a new governance strategy also for governance in teacher education. It appeared on the horizon in the 1980s and 1990s with its belief in the market as an agent for economic growth. The perception was that public sector, including education, was unproductive and unwilling to change. The new idea was that societies guided by the market would stimulate production, revitalize the civic society, and even strengthen democracy by individual choices and consumer power (OECD, 2000). The governance turn was ideologically rooted in liberalization and, to some degree, conservatism as political ideologies with focus on less government regulations and greater participation of private actors (Beck, 2005). New public management (NPM) became the broad term used to describe the wave of public sector reforms. The main hypothesis was that institutions guided by market rules would reduce costs, be more efficient, and even lead to higher quality, without having negative side effects (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). NPM, with its market orientation and its blithe acceptance of competition as a driving force, put public sector under pressure. NPM emphasized individualism and freedom of choice. It also assumed that decentralization, deregulation, and restructuring would improve both utilization of resources and higher quality of service. In this perspective, education, and also teacher education, was perceived as a service sector among others. New governance reforms were needed. The Management by Objectives (MbO) model, known from legendary Peter F. Drucker (1964, 1977), and originally developed as a strategy for more cost-efficient production and leadership in industry and business, became a suitable answer also for governance of public education, including teacher education.
Decentralized Centralism – A New Dynamic in Educational Governance The NPM ideology and the MbO governance strategy involved a new governance dynamic and changed use of
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
535
political tools. The relation between the market and the political system changed in favor of the market, however, at the same time, we can observe variation. States do not always passively adapt to the external, international constraints (Sassen, 1998). The earlier works have used the term decentralized centralism trying to catch the governance dynamic between centralization and decentralization processes (Karlsen, 2000). As a governance strategy, the MbO combined centralization and decentralization in dynamic interplay at the same time. Setting central goals and standards for outcomes were tasks for the macro-level and therefore assigned to centralization, while choice of tools and the responsibility for implementation were duties at the microlevel and seen as decentralization. The MbO strategy was goal and outcome oriented, in which decentralization was fitted into a centralized strategy. The model gave local freedom and probably more acceptance to work under harder pressure. In fact, this was management by results, and the rise of what Fa¨gerlind and Stro¨mquist (2004) have called the evaluative state. In teacher education, the trend to decentralize responsibility and deregulate state schooling was tied to a rhetoric of enhancing teacher autonomy and professionalism and stressed the importance of the teachers’ expert knowledge (Karlsen and Kvalbein, 2003). An opposite centralized trend was the state’s intensification of instruments for output control. Thus, increased output control might instead restrict teacher autonomy and contribute to deprofessionalization of teachers’ work (Helgøy and Homme, 2004). Delandshere and Arens (2001) interpret new teacher education reforms in the US as decreasing teachers’ degree of freedom to shape their own role as teachers. Teachers and teacher educators are perceived more as the object of policy rather than professional participants. However, good teacher education and good teachers have been politically seen as the backbone in any national education system (OECD, 2005). From the state perspective, teacher education is under double governance at the same time. Teacher education is perceived as a governance instrument for desirable educational change in the compulsory school system (Garm and Karlsen, 2004). At the same time, the authorities can use policy tools as governmental instruments for regulation of teacher education.
One example is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement from 1995 inside the World Trade Organization (WTO), which created an extended multilateral trading merchandise system to services, inclusive of education ( Jawara and Kwa, 2003). Knowledge has more and more emerged as a major trading commodity in the globalized economy (Coulby, 2005). The economy is another tool and of high importance at the state level and is closely connected to the framing of funding systems. The MbO strategy with its focus on measurable outcomes has contributed to a change in allocation systems of state funding from earmarking to lump-sum systems. In public finance, earmarking is a specification of public expenditure, while lump sum is a total amount and one-time payment. Together with other resources, the economy is used as an incentive tool based on the assumption that institutional and individual behavior is motivated by maximizing utility (Eurydice, 1999). School programs and curriculum as a state governance tool seem to be less important. Normally, the local teacher institution with the staff will have the obligation to elaborate local programs and curricula within a central framework (Klafki, 1999). However, the professional freedom is under pressure from the needs of the knowledge economy giving priority to basic skills and subject knowledge, particularly in science and technology. While the importance of the above-mentioned tools all seem weakened in teacher education, the importance of evaluation and control have increased more or less worldwide (Wilson and Youngs, 2006). Agencies for quality assurance at the national level through evaluation, accreditation, and recognition have been established. Politically controversial standardized tests for pupils such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)-initiated Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) also effect teacher education even more indirectly. National and international agents for quality assurance, accreditation, and high standards are playing important roles within the new liberal turn serving powerful new actors.
Changes in Use of Policy Tools
The traditional studies of governance in political science have been based upon study of institutions, actors, and procedure, within the national state. However, over the last 20 years, studies of the new institutionalism have flourished (Rhodes, 1995; March and Olsen, 2005). New actors are playing new roles. The new institutionalism has roots tracing back to the early period after the Second World War. Supranational institutions such as UN (United Nations), WB (World Bank), WTO, and OECD
The globalization process and the new neoliberal governance strategy have affected the choice of policy tools and the balance between the state, market, and civil society. The frameworks of legislation and regulation are still important state authority tools, but they are weakened. National laws and regulations are adapted into an increasing supranational legislation (Shapiro and Sweet, 2002).
New Supranational Actors – The New Institutionalism
536
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) became increasingly involved in educational policy. In addition, regional institutions such as the EU in Europe, NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Area) in North America, and APEC (Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation) in Southeast Asia are increasingly active in shaping education policy (Karlsen, 2002, 2006). Although the main agenda for these intergovernmental institutions was to develop policy for economic progress, they gradually included education in their policy actions. Institutions such as the WTO, WB, and OECD are mainly dominated and controlled by the world’s richest countries. These institutions are backed by strong capital forces which have considerable influence, for instance, lobbying toward the political system. Molnar (2005) argues that education now is being swept in by global forces and actors and reoriented toward an integrated relationship with commercial interests. A common ideological basis for the new international actors was, and is, liberalization emphasizing the importance of free trade and free capital movements. While classical liberalization, with roots tracing back to Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill as influential liberal thinkers, emphasized the value of human rationality and the protection of civil liberties, the new liberalism is closely connected to liberal market theory of economics. This new economic liberalism has occurred as a guarantee for efficiency and higher quality at the same time and implied a shift away from education as a universal citizenship rights to education as tradable commodities for the individual consumer. Alexiadou (2005) claims that the economic function of education has prioritized the creating of consumers and workers in the competitive capitalist economies, while the cultural and social role of education has been reduced. What is relatively obvious is that concepts from the economic realm are being uncritically applied also to the discourse of teacher education. When knowledge and socialization are referred to as products and educational services, when students are users and the school has to adapt to the market and be competitive, it is not only a question of words, but an expression of thinking. When students are transformed into human capital and are perceived as increased advantage in a global competition economy, it affects educational values and reasoning of governance in a fundamental manner (Hill, 2006). The result is likely to be a more instrumental teacher education with diminished cultural and social relevance and weaker ties to the civil society. The new global economy needs students with basic skills and high academic standards in central subjects, but at the same time flexible and innovative, motivated for quick and lifelong learning, and able to adapt to changes and the use of new technology (Rikowski, 2002). There is already a ‘‘global auction for jobs’’ (Brown et al., 2007, p. 4), where the main
bidders are today’s advanced economies. Greater workforce mobility has led to several governance actions for harmonization and a more standardized teacher education.
A More Standardized Teacher Education One of the most influential policy actions is known as the Bologna process. The Bologna declaration was signed in 1999 by the ministers of education from 29 countries (Bologna declaration, 1999). The main objectives were the idea of establishing a European area of higher education by 2010, thus making academic degrees and quality assurance more comparable and compatible throughout Europe. Although the Bologna process is not a formal EU process and now consists of 45 member-countries, the process can be perceived as a national implementation of central elements in EU’s policy (Karlsen, 2005). The Bologna process is closely connected to the strategic goal in the EU’s Lisbon strategy from 2000: making the EU the ‘‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’’ (European Commission, 2002, p. 7). The aim of creating the European education area corresponds to the successful action of the internal market in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Higher education and knowledge are looked upon and treated more like economic commodities. The Bologna process is in line with the neoliberal way of governing by setting central goals and encouraging the national states to find tools for implementation and, therefore receive feedback through regular stocktaking (Bergen Communique´, 2005). It can be basically seen as a governance strategy for standardization of educational systems (Fejes, 2005). The reasoning is that the standardizing of higher education will create transnational employability and mobility within a system with quality assurance. The Berlin Communique´ (2003) called for an overarching framework and led to the EQF (Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area) (Bologna Working Group, 2005). The EQF consist of eight reference levels relating to learners outcomes, to which the national state has to relate the national qualifications frameworks (European Commission, 2004). National and international agents for quality assurance, accreditation, and high standards are playing an important role, but the dependence of the policymakers varies. As an example, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is recognized by the US Department of Education as an accrediting institution, while National Board for Professional Teachers Standards (NBPTS) is an independent, nonprofit, and nongovernmental organization formed in 1987 to improve quality by developing professional standards. There is also an ongoing work in OECD to create surveys for teachers and principals called Teacher and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Data from different countries regarding
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
teachers’ competences and standards as defined in the survey tend to have a standardizing effect. In addition, professional efforts may have an unintended effect toward standardization, such as the impressive work edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford (2005) with the subtitle ‘What teachers should learn and be able to do’. The European Commission initiative and work for common principles for teacher competences and qualifications demonstrate the importance of governance in teacher education. Teachers are called key players in the implementation of educational reforms to make EU the highest performing knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010. Teachers should be well qualified; a profession based on partnership; important in the lifelong learning context; and a mobile profession (European Commission, 2005: 2,3). The Lisbon strategy and its related work programs, such as the Common Principles for Teachers, are all implemented according to the open method of coordination (OMC). The OMC includes identifying common objectives, agreeing on benchmarks indicators, exchange of good practice, and peer review (Gornitzka, 2006). Alexiadou (2005) describes OMC as a ‘‘new governance tool in the sphere of education’’ suitable to deal with sensitive areas (p. 13). Teacher education, traditionally closely linked to national sovereignty and issues such as national culture, nation building, and national identity, is a sensitive area in this OMC process.
Concluding Remarks Teacher education has been and still is highly controversial, criticized, and politicized (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2006). Social problems in the society and standards in schools are, in the political debate, seen as being directly correlated to the assumed quality of teacher education. In contrast to other higher education institutions with tradition for autonomy and self-governing, teacher education institutions historically have been used as important tools for state government purposes. Although teacher education still has a low academic status in traditional meaning, it has become more important politically. Historically, teacher education has played an important role in maintaining a national culture and the vitality in the civil society. Teacher education has been an important political instrument for building a democratic system at the national level. Both at the national and the institutional level, there is increased tension between individual/institutional freedom and institutional/national control. The tension between individual freedom and institutional control can be related to the accountability outcomes ideology and use of policy tools. Through the close connection to the compulsory school system, teacher education still forms the basis for
537
all higher education. However, the market is playing a more visible role in governance in teacher education. Globalization forces, new global actors, and a neoliberal governance strategy emphasize teacher education more instrumentally as a key institution in the new global knowledge economy. Now more than ever, teacher education is seen as a vital component in economic competition and growth. The governance discourse about teacher education is less cultural and social and more market oriented. However, the last years have presaged signs of de-globalization and the return of a new nationalism (Bello, 2002). The national state has played and still plays a key role in the governance of teacher education, but more on the demands from the market.
Bibliography Alexiadou, N. (2005). Europeanization and education policy. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism in Education, pp 128–146. London: Routledge-Falmer. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. Beck, U. (2005). Power in the Global Age: A New Global Economy. Cambridge: Polity. Bello, W. (2002). Deglobalization; Ideas for a New World Economy. Dhaka: University Press. Bergen Communique´ (2005). Communique´ of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education, Bergen: 19–20 May. Berlin Communique´ (2003). Communique´ of the conference of ministers responsible for higher education, Berlin: 18–19 September. Bologna Declaration (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education, Bologna, 19 June. Bologna Working Group on Qualification Frameworks (2005). Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, Copenhagen. Denmark: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Brown, P., Lauder, H., and Ashton, D. (2007). Towards a High Skills Economy: Higher Education and the New Realities of Global Capitalism. Paper, ISA conference, Cyprus: 25–27 May. Bron, A. (2001). Civil society and biographical learning. Key Note Presentation. NERA Congress, Stockholm, 15–18 March. Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education. The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: AERA. Coulby, D. (2005). The knowledge economy: Institutions. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 37–56. London: Routledge-Falmer. Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (2005). Introduction. Trends in globalization. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Nationalism in Education. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 23–36. London: Routledge-Falmer. Dale, R. (1989). The State and Education Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J. (eds.) (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Delandshere, G. and Arens, S. A. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 547–566. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commision on Education for the Twenty-First Century. Paris: UNESCO. Drucker, P. F. (1964). Management for Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-Taking Decisions. London: Heinemann.
538
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
Drucker, P. F. (1977). An Introductory View of Management. New York: Harper’s College Press. Dølvik, J. E. and Engelstad, F. (2003). National Regimes of Collective Bargaining in Transformation: Nordic Trends in Comparative Perspective. Oslo: Makt og demokratiutredningen. ETUCE (2006). Education and training 2010: Competences in the knowledge society-developing policies on European and national implementation. Report ETUCE Council and Conference February 2006, Belgium: ETUCE. European Commission (2001). European Governance – A white paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2002). Communication from the commission: Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2004). Implementation of ‘‘Education and Training 2010’’ work Program Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. A European Reference Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2005). European Testing Conference on Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualification, Brussels: 20–21 June. Eurydice (1999). Financing Education: Thematic Bibliography. Belgium: Eurydice. Eurydice (2002). Key topics in education in Europe. Volume 3: The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends and concerns. Report II: Supply and Demand – General Lower Secondary Education. Fa¨gerlind, I. and Stro¨mquist, G. (eds.) (2004). Reforming Higher Education in the Nordic Countries. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. Fejes, A. (2005). The Bologna-process - governing higher education in Europe through standardisation. In Halvorsen, T. and Nyhagen, A. (eds.) The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies, pp 219–232. Bergen: University of Bergen. Foucault, M. (2003). Governmentality. In Rabinow, R. and Rose, N. (eds.) The Essential Foucault; Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, pp 229–245. New York: The New Press. Garm, N. and Karlsen, G. E. (2004). Teacher education in Europe: The case of Norway; Trends and tensions in a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 731–744. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2000). The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gornitzka, A˚. (2006). The Open Method of Coordination as Practice - A Watershed in European education policy? Working paper No. 16 2006, Oslo: ARENA . Hann, C. and Dunn, E. (eds.) (2006). Civil Society: Challenging Western Models. London: Routledge. Held, D. and McGrew, T. (eds.) (2000). The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press. Helgøy, I. and Homme, A. (2004). The Relation between Policy Reforms and Governing Tools in Education. Comparing Teacher Professionalization in Norway, Sweden and England. Paper to be presented at the European Conference on Educational Research ECER, Crete: 22–25 September. Hill, D. (2006). Education Services Liberalization. In Rosskam, E. (ed.) Winners or Losers? Liberalizing Public Services. Geneva: International Labour Office. Jawara, F. and Kwa, A. (2003). Behind the Scenes at the WTO. The Real World of International Trade Negotiations. London: Zed Books. Jones, M., Jones, R., and Woods, M. (2004). An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. London: Routledge. Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy 15(5), 525–538. Karlsen, G. E. (2002). Educational policy and educational programmes in the European Union: A tool for political integration and economic
competition? In Ibanez-Martin, J. and Jover, G. (eds.) Education in Europe: Policies and Politics, pp 23–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 23–49. Karlsen, G. E. and Kvalbein, I. A. (eds.) (2003). Norsk Lærerutdanning (Norwegian Teacher Education). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Karlsen, G. E. (2005). The Bologna process - A judicial confirmation of EUs policy of education? In Halvorsen, T. and Nyhagen, A. (eds.) The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies, pp 214–218. Bergen: University of Bergen. Karlsen, G. E. (2006). Utdanning, Styring og Marked (Education, Governance and Market). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Klafki, W. (1999). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., and Riquas, K. (eds.) Teaching as a Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition, pp 139–159. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Kohler-Koch, B. (2005). European governance and system integration. European Governance Papers. No. C-05-01. Lavigne, M. (1995). The Economics of Transition: From Socialist Economy to Market Economy. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Lawn, M. and Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal 1(2), 290–307. Lindblad, S. and Popkewitz, T. S. (eds.) (2001). Listening to Education Actors on Governance and Social Integration and Exclusion. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Department of Education, Uppsala Reports on Education 37. Lundahl, L. (2005). Swedish, European, Global. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism in Education. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 147–164. London: RoutledgeFalmer. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2005). Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’ Working paper No 11. Oslo: Centre for European Studies. Martin, H.-P. and Schumann, H. (1996). Die Globalisierungsfalle: der Angriff auf Demokratie und Wohlstand (The Globalization Trap: The Assault on Democracy and Prosperity). Reinbek: Rowohlt. Mishra, R. (1999). Globalization and the Welfare State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Molnar, A. (2005). School Commercialism. From Democratic Ideal to Market Commodity. New York: Routledge. Negreponti-Delivanis, M. (2001). Conspiring Globalisation. Athens: Papazisi. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Reforming european institutions of governance. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5), 581–602. OECD (2000). Governance for the Future. Paris: OECD. OECD (2005). Teachers Matters. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform - A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R. (1995). The institutional approach. In March, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, pp 42–57. London: Macmillan. Rikowski, G. (2002). Education, Capital and the Transhuman. In Hill, D., McLaren, P., Cole, M., and Rikowski, G. (eds.) Marxism against Postmodernism in Educational Theory, pp 111–143. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Rokkan, S. (1987). Stat, Nasjon, Klasse (State, Nation, Class). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Shapiro, M. and Sweet, A. (2002). On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sassen, S. (1998). Globalisation and its Discontents. New York: The New Press. Spybey, T. (1996). Globalization and World Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thomas, E. (ed.) (2002). Teacher Education. Dilemmas and prospects. World Yearbook of Education 2002. London: Kogan Page. Vaage, S. (ed.) (2001). Education and nationbuilding: Conference report 14–15 June 2001. Volda: Volda University College. Wilson, S. M. and Youngs, P. (2006). Research on accountability processes in teacher education. In Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (eds.) Studying Teacher Education, pp 591–644. Washington, DC: AERA.
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
Further Reading Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and Educational Reform: What Planners Need to Know. Paris: UNESCO. Clarke, A. (2001). The recent landscape of teacher education: Critical points and possible conjectures. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 599–611. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or worse. Educational Research 34, 3–17. Dale, R. (2000). Globalization: A new world for comparative education? In Schriwer, J. (ed.) Discourse Formation in Comparative Education, pp 87–110. Frankfurt: Peter Land Verlag. Daun, H. (1998). Restructuring Education in Europe. Stockholm: Institute of International Education. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell. Held, D. (ed.) (1998). A Globalizing World?: Culture, Economics, Politics. London: Routledge.
539
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002). Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ibanez-Martin, J. and Jover, G. (eds.) Education in Europe: Policies and Politics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Karlsen, G. E. (1993). Desentralisert Skoleutvikling (Decentralized School Development). Oslo: AdNotam Gyldendal. Kuhnle, S., Flora, P., Urwin, D., and Rokkan, S. (eds.) (1999). State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan: Based on His Collected Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Popkewitz, T. S. (ed.) (1987). Critical Studies in Teacher Education. Its Folklore, Theory and Practice. London: The Falmer Press. Rizvi, F. (2004). Theorizing the global governance of educational restructuring. In Lindblad, S. and Popkewitz, T. S. (eds.) Educational Restructuring. International Perspectives on Traveling Policies, pp 21–41. Greenwich: IAP. Tudor, I. (2006). Teacher training and ‘quality’ in higher education language teaching. Strategies and options. European Journal of Teacher Education 29, 519–532.
Introduction The phenomenon of governance and government is normally linked to the execution of power with a legal and legitimate basis. In social science literature, government is the traditional term for steering and control. Typically, the government refers to the state, understood as the political and administrative system at the national level and in particular the executive function of the state (Ball, 1990; Dale, 1989; Kuhlne et al., 1999). The Foucauldian concept of governmentality (Foucault, 2003) has been a guiding concept for recent education policy research with focus on mentalities and rationality of governing of the state and changes over time. Governance is a more versatile term in social sciences and research corresponding to the postmodern form of economics and political actors. In particular, there is a great deal of research about European governance related to the European Union (EU; Olsen, 2002; Kohler-Koch, 2005). In the EU’s white paper European Governance, the concept of governance is defined as ‘‘rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercised.’’ Openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence are considered as principles that should underpin what is called ‘‘good governance’’ (European Commission, 2001: 11, 17). In this article, governance is used in a neutral meaning. Governance includes macro-actors and processes and relationships to and between states, regional, and local actors and markets in education policy (Lawn and Lingard, 2002). The governance in relation to teacher education also includes informal steering from nongovernmental bodies in the civil society and influence from the institutional culture in teacher education institutions (Lindblad and Popkewitz, 2001). Teacher education has a high degree of complexity and a great variety in time length, content, organization, and the degree of specialization. In fact, there are more structures than countries if we consider, for instance, Europe (Eurydice, 2002; Garm and Karlsen, 2004). If teacher education is considered to be one educational system – as a unit distinct from others – with common, distinctive traits, it is a nonexistent phenomenon in the real world. What do exist, however, are the continuous political and professional discourses regarding knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills necessary for the teacher profession and the institutions for teacher education. Historically, the structure, content, and ideology of teacher education institutions mirror the present political
532
conditions. The governance of teacher education has normally been a national issue. National teacher education and the compulsory school system are normally interlinked (Karlsen and Kvalbein, 2003). They have been and still are key institutions for socialization into the modern state. The impressive research report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005) summarize: ‘‘It is now widely agreed that teachers are among the most, if not the most, significant factors in children’s learning and the linchpins in educational reforms of all kinds.’’ Therefore, the importance of teacher education is obvious in many ways. The education system and, in particular, teacher education has historically been closely connected with nation building (Vaage, 2001). Education is a part of rights and obligations in a complex relationship between the state and the individual citizen. This is still the normal situation; however, the traditional role of national governance is being challenged by new procedures and new global actors. The territorial representative parliamentary democracy, when limited to national state agents with agreements about rules within the structure of the national state, is being challenged by globalization. Bauman (1998) claims that this threatens to make national democracy irrelevant and powerless. With this background in mind, a simple model will function as an analytical framework for the further discussion of the role of governance in teacher education.
An Analytical Model – Levels and Systems Although governance of teacher education primarily has a national mission, teacher education and its reforms are embedded in an increasingly global context. Therefore, the role of governance in teacher education has to be analyzed as an interactive process between supranational, national, and organizational (local) levels. The model is a simplification of the complexity of educational governance. Teacher education includes both the professional education system at the national level and institutions at the local level. The model shows interrelations of main actors and forces affecting governance of teacher education at and within the national level and the globalization pressure from actors at the supranational level (Figure 1). Traditionally, the nation-state has been associated with a specific geographical area, political entity, and, in addition, a cultural and ethnical unit. Political science
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
533
Globalization
• Civil society • Cultural activity • The economic system • Market activity
• Teacher education
• The political system • Political activity
The corporative system
Globalization
Figure 1 Governance of teacher education–actors and forces.
normally emphasizes the existence of a political and administrative system having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory ( Jones et al., 2004). The central base for the national state is the legal framework accompanied by a set of related political, judicial, and administrative state institutions such as the parliament, state bureaucracy, courts, and police. The school system, and in particular the teacher education, is a key institution in the state. The market, understood as rational decision making, is basically a social arrangement or a marketplace that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out voluntary exchange of goods and services. Market activity within the economic system is primarily the arena of capital connected to economic transactions. The relation between the political and the civil system and the market will vary, but the move toward the market economy has been obvious (Lavigne, 1995). Although the free-market economy is prospering, the mixed economy is still common in most of the countries, with degrees of government influence in combination of state-owned and private enterprises. The concept of civil society has had a renaissance both in political and comparative theory. Civil society normally refers to the arena of collective company and actions linked to shared interests, purposes, and values (Bron, 2001). The boundaries between state, civil society, and market are often complex and blurred. The civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that to a high degree form the basis of a functioning society (Hann and Dunn, 2006). The civil society provides rights connected to democracy, political consultation, and the development of life, within culture and religion, in or outside
institutional and organizational frames. The civil society can be understood as the glue of society. In this light, the formation of state and citizenship provides a framework for civil rights. The growth of the organizational society, particularly in the nineteenth century, contributed to the development of new cooperative structures, creating new channels for influence. Labor unions promoted right to collective bargaining and tariff agreement between their members and the employers. Within the Nordic states system, for instance, negotiations between representatives of unions and employers’ organizations gradually became a formalized decision-making channel in addition and, to some extent, as an alternative to the representative democracy (Dølvik and Engelstad, 2003). The political scientist Stein Rokkan (1987) has called this regime of governance ‘‘corporative pluralism’’ (p. 61). In relation to education, this became important because teachers created strong unions. The unions provided corporative power connected to participation in public committees, elected groups, public hearings, and, not the least, contracts about working conditions negotiated between the state and the unions. At the European level, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUCE) is an influential teacher union with a total of 60 million members. The ETUCE is the only representative cross-sectoral trade union organization at a European level recognized by the EU (ETUCE, 2006). The overall political neoliberal governance turn in the last 20 years has put both the political system and the civil society under pressure. New global ideologies, new strategies and new macro-actors are brought into force. Therefore, the governance in teacher education must be analyzed in this context starting with globalization and the driving forces behind it.
534
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
Globalization and Global Forces Globalization is normally used as an umbrella term which refers to a complexity of economic, technological, cultural, social, and political interrelationships. The notion is frequently used both as a slogan in public debate and in scientific literature (Spybey, 1996; Held and McGrew, 2000). The term globalization term can be seen as a perception about a pluralistic, worldwide postmodern period after industrialism (Giddens, 1990). Although globalization is not completely a new phenomenon, it has become the dominating contemporary diagnosis in the last twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries. There is considerable agreement among researchers that the economy is a driving force (Coulby and Zambeta, 2005). Globalization may primarily refer to a process through which national economies became increasingly open to supranational influence (Lundahl, 2005). At the core of globalization lays the new market economy with its market capitalism and worldwide economic activity. Globalization is further interpreted as a consequence of modern science and new technology, particularly in connection with information technology. Globalization has led to a flood of influences economically, environmentally, politically, socially, and culturally, which are almost impossible to protect oneself against (Mishra, 1999; Martin and Schumann, 1996). The main hypothesis is that we are forced toward standardization not only economically, but also socially and culturally. A UNESCO report, led by the former EU President Jacques Delors, proclaimed a development for this century ‘‘towards a globalization of human activity’’ (Delors, 1996: 41). Globalization is a phenomenon with consequences and influences – good and bad – also for teacher education. In particular, the themes of central control, the role of the state and teacher education as a cultural reproductive institution, create dilemmas and prospects (Thomas, 2002). The discussion surrounding globalization has essentially been linked to whether this is a desired or undesired development. On the one hand, it is claimed that globalization is necessary, inevitable, and the only possible way to get a larger degree of political and economic stability and predictability (Giddens, 2000). On the other hand, globalization is seen as a serious threat toward established order and common values. The development of antiglobalization forces has grown (Hill, 2006). The political left wing is the most obvious in alliance with environmentalists and labor unions, included teachers unions. The Education International (EI) is the world’s largest, and probably the most important, teacher union with its 345 member organizations in 165 countries and territories. The union is critical of the impact of globalization on education and perceives the neoliberal globalization as a significant risk affecting public education, restricting the available policy space for national governments (Hill, 2006).
The acronym TINA (there is no alternative) refers to the slogan attributed to the former prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, who argued that globalization with its free trade and global economy was the only way for modern states. Others have argued that the global market economy, which is adopted in most of the states worldwide, is a neoliberal political agenda rather than an inevitable choice (Negreponti-Delivanis, 2001). Therefore, we need to examine this agenda in a governance perspective. A Neoliberal Ideology and New Governance Strategy The overall neoliberal turn can be perceived as a renewed ideology and a new governance strategy also for governance in teacher education. It appeared on the horizon in the 1980s and 1990s with its belief in the market as an agent for economic growth. The perception was that public sector, including education, was unproductive and unwilling to change. The new idea was that societies guided by the market would stimulate production, revitalize the civic society, and even strengthen democracy by individual choices and consumer power (OECD, 2000). The governance turn was ideologically rooted in liberalization and, to some degree, conservatism as political ideologies with focus on less government regulations and greater participation of private actors (Beck, 2005). New public management (NPM) became the broad term used to describe the wave of public sector reforms. The main hypothesis was that institutions guided by market rules would reduce costs, be more efficient, and even lead to higher quality, without having negative side effects (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). NPM, with its market orientation and its blithe acceptance of competition as a driving force, put public sector under pressure. NPM emphasized individualism and freedom of choice. It also assumed that decentralization, deregulation, and restructuring would improve both utilization of resources and higher quality of service. In this perspective, education, and also teacher education, was perceived as a service sector among others. New governance reforms were needed. The Management by Objectives (MbO) model, known from legendary Peter F. Drucker (1964, 1977), and originally developed as a strategy for more cost-efficient production and leadership in industry and business, became a suitable answer also for governance of public education, including teacher education.
Decentralized Centralism – A New Dynamic in Educational Governance The NPM ideology and the MbO governance strategy involved a new governance dynamic and changed use of
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
535
political tools. The relation between the market and the political system changed in favor of the market, however, at the same time, we can observe variation. States do not always passively adapt to the external, international constraints (Sassen, 1998). The earlier works have used the term decentralized centralism trying to catch the governance dynamic between centralization and decentralization processes (Karlsen, 2000). As a governance strategy, the MbO combined centralization and decentralization in dynamic interplay at the same time. Setting central goals and standards for outcomes were tasks for the macro-level and therefore assigned to centralization, while choice of tools and the responsibility for implementation were duties at the microlevel and seen as decentralization. The MbO strategy was goal and outcome oriented, in which decentralization was fitted into a centralized strategy. The model gave local freedom and probably more acceptance to work under harder pressure. In fact, this was management by results, and the rise of what Fa¨gerlind and Stro¨mquist (2004) have called the evaluative state. In teacher education, the trend to decentralize responsibility and deregulate state schooling was tied to a rhetoric of enhancing teacher autonomy and professionalism and stressed the importance of the teachers’ expert knowledge (Karlsen and Kvalbein, 2003). An opposite centralized trend was the state’s intensification of instruments for output control. Thus, increased output control might instead restrict teacher autonomy and contribute to deprofessionalization of teachers’ work (Helgøy and Homme, 2004). Delandshere and Arens (2001) interpret new teacher education reforms in the US as decreasing teachers’ degree of freedom to shape their own role as teachers. Teachers and teacher educators are perceived more as the object of policy rather than professional participants. However, good teacher education and good teachers have been politically seen as the backbone in any national education system (OECD, 2005). From the state perspective, teacher education is under double governance at the same time. Teacher education is perceived as a governance instrument for desirable educational change in the compulsory school system (Garm and Karlsen, 2004). At the same time, the authorities can use policy tools as governmental instruments for regulation of teacher education.
One example is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement from 1995 inside the World Trade Organization (WTO), which created an extended multilateral trading merchandise system to services, inclusive of education ( Jawara and Kwa, 2003). Knowledge has more and more emerged as a major trading commodity in the globalized economy (Coulby, 2005). The economy is another tool and of high importance at the state level and is closely connected to the framing of funding systems. The MbO strategy with its focus on measurable outcomes has contributed to a change in allocation systems of state funding from earmarking to lump-sum systems. In public finance, earmarking is a specification of public expenditure, while lump sum is a total amount and one-time payment. Together with other resources, the economy is used as an incentive tool based on the assumption that institutional and individual behavior is motivated by maximizing utility (Eurydice, 1999). School programs and curriculum as a state governance tool seem to be less important. Normally, the local teacher institution with the staff will have the obligation to elaborate local programs and curricula within a central framework (Klafki, 1999). However, the professional freedom is under pressure from the needs of the knowledge economy giving priority to basic skills and subject knowledge, particularly in science and technology. While the importance of the above-mentioned tools all seem weakened in teacher education, the importance of evaluation and control have increased more or less worldwide (Wilson and Youngs, 2006). Agencies for quality assurance at the national level through evaluation, accreditation, and recognition have been established. Politically controversial standardized tests for pupils such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)-initiated Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) also effect teacher education even more indirectly. National and international agents for quality assurance, accreditation, and high standards are playing important roles within the new liberal turn serving powerful new actors.
Changes in Use of Policy Tools
The traditional studies of governance in political science have been based upon study of institutions, actors, and procedure, within the national state. However, over the last 20 years, studies of the new institutionalism have flourished (Rhodes, 1995; March and Olsen, 2005). New actors are playing new roles. The new institutionalism has roots tracing back to the early period after the Second World War. Supranational institutions such as UN (United Nations), WB (World Bank), WTO, and OECD
The globalization process and the new neoliberal governance strategy have affected the choice of policy tools and the balance between the state, market, and civil society. The frameworks of legislation and regulation are still important state authority tools, but they are weakened. National laws and regulations are adapted into an increasing supranational legislation (Shapiro and Sweet, 2002).
New Supranational Actors – The New Institutionalism
536
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) became increasingly involved in educational policy. In addition, regional institutions such as the EU in Europe, NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Area) in North America, and APEC (Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation) in Southeast Asia are increasingly active in shaping education policy (Karlsen, 2002, 2006). Although the main agenda for these intergovernmental institutions was to develop policy for economic progress, they gradually included education in their policy actions. Institutions such as the WTO, WB, and OECD are mainly dominated and controlled by the world’s richest countries. These institutions are backed by strong capital forces which have considerable influence, for instance, lobbying toward the political system. Molnar (2005) argues that education now is being swept in by global forces and actors and reoriented toward an integrated relationship with commercial interests. A common ideological basis for the new international actors was, and is, liberalization emphasizing the importance of free trade and free capital movements. While classical liberalization, with roots tracing back to Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill as influential liberal thinkers, emphasized the value of human rationality and the protection of civil liberties, the new liberalism is closely connected to liberal market theory of economics. This new economic liberalism has occurred as a guarantee for efficiency and higher quality at the same time and implied a shift away from education as a universal citizenship rights to education as tradable commodities for the individual consumer. Alexiadou (2005) claims that the economic function of education has prioritized the creating of consumers and workers in the competitive capitalist economies, while the cultural and social role of education has been reduced. What is relatively obvious is that concepts from the economic realm are being uncritically applied also to the discourse of teacher education. When knowledge and socialization are referred to as products and educational services, when students are users and the school has to adapt to the market and be competitive, it is not only a question of words, but an expression of thinking. When students are transformed into human capital and are perceived as increased advantage in a global competition economy, it affects educational values and reasoning of governance in a fundamental manner (Hill, 2006). The result is likely to be a more instrumental teacher education with diminished cultural and social relevance and weaker ties to the civil society. The new global economy needs students with basic skills and high academic standards in central subjects, but at the same time flexible and innovative, motivated for quick and lifelong learning, and able to adapt to changes and the use of new technology (Rikowski, 2002). There is already a ‘‘global auction for jobs’’ (Brown et al., 2007, p. 4), where the main
bidders are today’s advanced economies. Greater workforce mobility has led to several governance actions for harmonization and a more standardized teacher education.
A More Standardized Teacher Education One of the most influential policy actions is known as the Bologna process. The Bologna declaration was signed in 1999 by the ministers of education from 29 countries (Bologna declaration, 1999). The main objectives were the idea of establishing a European area of higher education by 2010, thus making academic degrees and quality assurance more comparable and compatible throughout Europe. Although the Bologna process is not a formal EU process and now consists of 45 member-countries, the process can be perceived as a national implementation of central elements in EU’s policy (Karlsen, 2005). The Bologna process is closely connected to the strategic goal in the EU’s Lisbon strategy from 2000: making the EU the ‘‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’’ (European Commission, 2002, p. 7). The aim of creating the European education area corresponds to the successful action of the internal market in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Higher education and knowledge are looked upon and treated more like economic commodities. The Bologna process is in line with the neoliberal way of governing by setting central goals and encouraging the national states to find tools for implementation and, therefore receive feedback through regular stocktaking (Bergen Communique´, 2005). It can be basically seen as a governance strategy for standardization of educational systems (Fejes, 2005). The reasoning is that the standardizing of higher education will create transnational employability and mobility within a system with quality assurance. The Berlin Communique´ (2003) called for an overarching framework and led to the EQF (Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area) (Bologna Working Group, 2005). The EQF consist of eight reference levels relating to learners outcomes, to which the national state has to relate the national qualifications frameworks (European Commission, 2004). National and international agents for quality assurance, accreditation, and high standards are playing an important role, but the dependence of the policymakers varies. As an example, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is recognized by the US Department of Education as an accrediting institution, while National Board for Professional Teachers Standards (NBPTS) is an independent, nonprofit, and nongovernmental organization formed in 1987 to improve quality by developing professional standards. There is also an ongoing work in OECD to create surveys for teachers and principals called Teacher and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Data from different countries regarding
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
teachers’ competences and standards as defined in the survey tend to have a standardizing effect. In addition, professional efforts may have an unintended effect toward standardization, such as the impressive work edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford (2005) with the subtitle ‘What teachers should learn and be able to do’. The European Commission initiative and work for common principles for teacher competences and qualifications demonstrate the importance of governance in teacher education. Teachers are called key players in the implementation of educational reforms to make EU the highest performing knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010. Teachers should be well qualified; a profession based on partnership; important in the lifelong learning context; and a mobile profession (European Commission, 2005: 2,3). The Lisbon strategy and its related work programs, such as the Common Principles for Teachers, are all implemented according to the open method of coordination (OMC). The OMC includes identifying common objectives, agreeing on benchmarks indicators, exchange of good practice, and peer review (Gornitzka, 2006). Alexiadou (2005) describes OMC as a ‘‘new governance tool in the sphere of education’’ suitable to deal with sensitive areas (p. 13). Teacher education, traditionally closely linked to national sovereignty and issues such as national culture, nation building, and national identity, is a sensitive area in this OMC process.
Concluding Remarks Teacher education has been and still is highly controversial, criticized, and politicized (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2006). Social problems in the society and standards in schools are, in the political debate, seen as being directly correlated to the assumed quality of teacher education. In contrast to other higher education institutions with tradition for autonomy and self-governing, teacher education institutions historically have been used as important tools for state government purposes. Although teacher education still has a low academic status in traditional meaning, it has become more important politically. Historically, teacher education has played an important role in maintaining a national culture and the vitality in the civil society. Teacher education has been an important political instrument for building a democratic system at the national level. Both at the national and the institutional level, there is increased tension between individual/institutional freedom and institutional/national control. The tension between individual freedom and institutional control can be related to the accountability outcomes ideology and use of policy tools. Through the close connection to the compulsory school system, teacher education still forms the basis for
537
all higher education. However, the market is playing a more visible role in governance in teacher education. Globalization forces, new global actors, and a neoliberal governance strategy emphasize teacher education more instrumentally as a key institution in the new global knowledge economy. Now more than ever, teacher education is seen as a vital component in economic competition and growth. The governance discourse about teacher education is less cultural and social and more market oriented. However, the last years have presaged signs of de-globalization and the return of a new nationalism (Bello, 2002). The national state has played and still plays a key role in the governance of teacher education, but more on the demands from the market.
Bibliography Alexiadou, N. (2005). Europeanization and education policy. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism in Education, pp 128–146. London: Routledge-Falmer. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. Beck, U. (2005). Power in the Global Age: A New Global Economy. Cambridge: Polity. Bello, W. (2002). Deglobalization; Ideas for a New World Economy. Dhaka: University Press. Bergen Communique´ (2005). Communique´ of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education, Bergen: 19–20 May. Berlin Communique´ (2003). Communique´ of the conference of ministers responsible for higher education, Berlin: 18–19 September. Bologna Declaration (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education, Bologna, 19 June. Bologna Working Group on Qualification Frameworks (2005). Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, Copenhagen. Denmark: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Brown, P., Lauder, H., and Ashton, D. (2007). Towards a High Skills Economy: Higher Education and the New Realities of Global Capitalism. Paper, ISA conference, Cyprus: 25–27 May. Bron, A. (2001). Civil society and biographical learning. Key Note Presentation. NERA Congress, Stockholm, 15–18 March. Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education. The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: AERA. Coulby, D. (2005). The knowledge economy: Institutions. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 37–56. London: Routledge-Falmer. Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (2005). Introduction. Trends in globalization. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Nationalism in Education. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 23–36. London: Routledge-Falmer. Dale, R. (1989). The State and Education Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J. (eds.) (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Delandshere, G. and Arens, S. A. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 547–566. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commision on Education for the Twenty-First Century. Paris: UNESCO. Drucker, P. F. (1964). Management for Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-Taking Decisions. London: Heinemann.
538
Teacher Education – Macro Factors
Drucker, P. F. (1977). An Introductory View of Management. New York: Harper’s College Press. Dølvik, J. E. and Engelstad, F. (2003). National Regimes of Collective Bargaining in Transformation: Nordic Trends in Comparative Perspective. Oslo: Makt og demokratiutredningen. ETUCE (2006). Education and training 2010: Competences in the knowledge society-developing policies on European and national implementation. Report ETUCE Council and Conference February 2006, Belgium: ETUCE. European Commission (2001). European Governance – A white paper. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2002). Communication from the commission: Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2004). Implementation of ‘‘Education and Training 2010’’ work Program Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. A European Reference Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. European Commission (2005). European Testing Conference on Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualification, Brussels: 20–21 June. Eurydice (1999). Financing Education: Thematic Bibliography. Belgium: Eurydice. Eurydice (2002). Key topics in education in Europe. Volume 3: The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends and concerns. Report II: Supply and Demand – General Lower Secondary Education. Fa¨gerlind, I. and Stro¨mquist, G. (eds.) (2004). Reforming Higher Education in the Nordic Countries. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. Fejes, A. (2005). The Bologna-process - governing higher education in Europe through standardisation. In Halvorsen, T. and Nyhagen, A. (eds.) The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies, pp 219–232. Bergen: University of Bergen. Foucault, M. (2003). Governmentality. In Rabinow, R. and Rose, N. (eds.) The Essential Foucault; Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, pp 229–245. New York: The New Press. Garm, N. and Karlsen, G. E. (2004). Teacher education in Europe: The case of Norway; Trends and tensions in a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 731–744. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2000). The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gornitzka, A˚. (2006). The Open Method of Coordination as Practice - A Watershed in European education policy? Working paper No. 16 2006, Oslo: ARENA . Hann, C. and Dunn, E. (eds.) (2006). Civil Society: Challenging Western Models. London: Routledge. Held, D. and McGrew, T. (eds.) (2000). The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press. Helgøy, I. and Homme, A. (2004). The Relation between Policy Reforms and Governing Tools in Education. Comparing Teacher Professionalization in Norway, Sweden and England. Paper to be presented at the European Conference on Educational Research ECER, Crete: 22–25 September. Hill, D. (2006). Education Services Liberalization. In Rosskam, E. (ed.) Winners or Losers? Liberalizing Public Services. Geneva: International Labour Office. Jawara, F. and Kwa, A. (2003). Behind the Scenes at the WTO. The Real World of International Trade Negotiations. London: Zed Books. Jones, M., Jones, R., and Woods, M. (2004). An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. London: Routledge. Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy 15(5), 525–538. Karlsen, G. E. (2002). Educational policy and educational programmes in the European Union: A tool for political integration and economic
competition? In Ibanez-Martin, J. and Jover, G. (eds.) Education in Europe: Policies and Politics, pp 23–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 23–49. Karlsen, G. E. and Kvalbein, I. A. (eds.) (2003). Norsk Lærerutdanning (Norwegian Teacher Education). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Karlsen, G. E. (2005). The Bologna process - A judicial confirmation of EUs policy of education? In Halvorsen, T. and Nyhagen, A. (eds.) The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies, pp 214–218. Bergen: University of Bergen. Karlsen, G. E. (2006). Utdanning, Styring og Marked (Education, Governance and Market). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Klafki, W. (1999). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., and Riquas, K. (eds.) Teaching as a Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition, pp 139–159. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Kohler-Koch, B. (2005). European governance and system integration. European Governance Papers. No. C-05-01. Lavigne, M. (1995). The Economics of Transition: From Socialist Economy to Market Economy. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Lawn, M. and Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal 1(2), 290–307. Lindblad, S. and Popkewitz, T. S. (eds.) (2001). Listening to Education Actors on Governance and Social Integration and Exclusion. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Department of Education, Uppsala Reports on Education 37. Lundahl, L. (2005). Swedish, European, Global. In Coulby, D. and Zambeta, E. (eds.) Globalization and Nationalism in Education. World Yearbook of Education 2005, pp 147–164. London: RoutledgeFalmer. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2005). Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’ Working paper No 11. Oslo: Centre for European Studies. Martin, H.-P. and Schumann, H. (1996). Die Globalisierungsfalle: der Angriff auf Demokratie und Wohlstand (The Globalization Trap: The Assault on Democracy and Prosperity). Reinbek: Rowohlt. Mishra, R. (1999). Globalization and the Welfare State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Molnar, A. (2005). School Commercialism. From Democratic Ideal to Market Commodity. New York: Routledge. Negreponti-Delivanis, M. (2001). Conspiring Globalisation. Athens: Papazisi. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Reforming european institutions of governance. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5), 581–602. OECD (2000). Governance for the Future. Paris: OECD. OECD (2005). Teachers Matters. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform - A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R. (1995). The institutional approach. In March, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, pp 42–57. London: Macmillan. Rikowski, G. (2002). Education, Capital and the Transhuman. In Hill, D., McLaren, P., Cole, M., and Rikowski, G. (eds.) Marxism against Postmodernism in Educational Theory, pp 111–143. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Rokkan, S. (1987). Stat, Nasjon, Klasse (State, Nation, Class). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Shapiro, M. and Sweet, A. (2002). On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sassen, S. (1998). Globalisation and its Discontents. New York: The New Press. Spybey, T. (1996). Globalization and World Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thomas, E. (ed.) (2002). Teacher Education. Dilemmas and prospects. World Yearbook of Education 2002. London: Kogan Page. Vaage, S. (ed.) (2001). Education and nationbuilding: Conference report 14–15 June 2001. Volda: Volda University College. Wilson, S. M. and Youngs, P. (2006). Research on accountability processes in teacher education. In Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (eds.) Studying Teacher Education, pp 591–644. Washington, DC: AERA.
The Role of Governance in Teacher Education
Further Reading Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and Educational Reform: What Planners Need to Know. Paris: UNESCO. Clarke, A. (2001). The recent landscape of teacher education: Critical points and possible conjectures. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 599–611. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or worse. Educational Research 34, 3–17. Dale, R. (2000). Globalization: A new world for comparative education? In Schriwer, J. (ed.) Discourse Formation in Comparative Education, pp 87–110. Frankfurt: Peter Land Verlag. Daun, H. (1998). Restructuring Education in Europe. Stockholm: Institute of International Education. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell. Held, D. (ed.) (1998). A Globalizing World?: Culture, Economics, Politics. London: Routledge.
539
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002). Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ibanez-Martin, J. and Jover, G. (eds.) Education in Europe: Policies and Politics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Karlsen, G. E. (1993). Desentralisert Skoleutvikling (Decentralized School Development). Oslo: AdNotam Gyldendal. Kuhnle, S., Flora, P., Urwin, D., and Rokkan, S. (eds.) (1999). State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan: Based on His Collected Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Popkewitz, T. S. (ed.) (1987). Critical Studies in Teacher Education. Its Folklore, Theory and Practice. London: The Falmer Press. Rizvi, F. (2004). Theorizing the global governance of educational restructuring. In Lindblad, S. and Popkewitz, T. S. (eds.) Educational Restructuring. International Perspectives on Traveling Policies, pp 21–41. Greenwich: IAP. Tudor, I. (2006). Teacher training and ‘quality’ in higher education language teaching. Strategies and options. European Journal of Teacher Education 29, 519–532.