Just as defining policy is not straightforward, unravelling the complex influences on its development is also challenging. Policy has been portrayed as simply responding, in the most effective and efficient manner, to objective problems (Coombs 1970, cited by Simons, Olssen, Peters, 2009). However, politics and polices are intertwined in the process of policy development. Ozga points out that education policy is not limited to government processes, schools or teachers – it is also necessary to understand the political, social and economic contexts of policy (Ozga, 1999). In this section, I briefly discuss policy context and participation in policy processes.
Policy is developed within a particular socio-political and economic environment by actors with the authority to do so. Taylor (Eds., 1997) argue that “[t]here is always a
prior history of significant events, a particular ideological and political climate a social and economic context – and often, particular individuals as well – which together influence the shape and timing of policies (ibid, , p. 16). Policy responds to cultural,
social, political and economic norms, and, in turn, is shaped by the same context. Understanding the wider context that shaped SDG4’s formulation, and the implications of how it will in turn contribute to shaping ideas and contexts, is an important aspect of my research.
In the preceding chapter, I have considered the context of SDG4’s formulation, including the impact of the MDG and EFA global education policy frameworks that preceded it. In analysing any policy, the context in which it is formulated is an important consideration and that is certainly the case for global polices such as SDG4. The context of policy production to a degree also determines who participates. A local policy, for example, may involve more direct consultation with beneficiaries, and a global policy such as SDG4 (within the wider 2030 agenda) is more likely to involve governments and their international partners (as I discuss in chapter 5). The formulation of SDG4 was arguably unique, with considerable levels of engagement - beyond governments and
the UN - with civil society groups and private sector organisations engaged in formal and informal processes with an aim to shaping the agenda, including through
consultations through the online MyWorld survey (UN, 2012b) (discussed in chapter 5).
More often than not – as, I argue, is the case for SDG4 (see chapter 5) - policy is the domain of elite policy makers who bring their own values and assumptions to the policy process. As previously mentioned,Lingard, Sellar and Baroutsis (2015) make an
interesting analysis of the shared ‘habitus’ of global and national policy makers and the traits they share. They note that
The habitus of the policy-makers and technicians was similar in respect of the globe as a commensurate space of measurement, in terms of the promises of technology, psychometrics and science [ . . . .] their habitus is embodied middle class, it includes high-modernist, cosmopolitan and scientistic dispositions: schemes of perception and thinking that underpin their practices. (Ibid, p. 38).
This is an important analysis because it points to how those making policy share similar traits that influence both how they understand problems and solutions and make policy. Understanding the context of policy production and the power of actors involved is important for any meaningful analysis of policy.
My research, by the nature of its subject, is focused on international (or global) policy. These types of global policies, including the SDGs, are ‘held’ by international ‘supra- state’ institutions that coordinate, monitor and/or regulate their implementation. In these contexts, international organisations have a high degree of influence in shaping education policy at the national level because of their perceived authority. Among the most influential is the World Bank, which wields significant reach and influence on education policy, particularly in emerging and low-income countries (Mundy and Verger, 2015; Zapp, 2017; Menashy, 2013).
The power these organisations hold has led to them being described as “supra-state institutions, which act, to some degree, as superordinate states” (Hill 2013,). Lingard & Rawolle (2011) describe this as the influence of ‘transnational policy’, whereby
“international organisations, have effects within national polities through discourses,
national indicators of the knowledge economy and associated global policy discourses”.12 (ibid, p. 491).
Other international education organisations such as UNESCO (including its specialist institutions) work directly with member states to provide guidance, often training national policy makers. Although this assistance is portrayed as purely technical and neutral, it also brings with it particular values and globalised policy ideas.
The Global Partnership for Education (GPE), a key part of the global education funding architecture, exercises significant influence over the development of education sector plans in low- and middle-income countries and fragile states. GPE, which rebranded and developed from the Fast Track Initiative for EFA, portrays its work as a partnership with developing countries, suggesting it creates a plan for education together with national actors and provides technical expertise and financial resource. However, this discourse of partnerships masks power relations (Gaventa, 2006). Recognising how these powerful actors shape education policy globally is important in undertaking analysis of SDG4. While the nation state continues to be seen as the main arbiter of education policy, even at a national level education policy is strongly influenced by globalisation and these powerful supra-state institutions, although they do not always act in unity (see chapter 5).
The globalised nature of education policy is another important consideration in undertaking research on the formation of a specific global policy for education, as it highlights the pre-existence of dominant discourse(s) in the field of education. Given that SDG4 is a universal global policy, the influence of globalised discourses is arguably more, rather than less, likely to impact its formulation, as these global discourses on education are already known and resonate with a broad group of policy makers/elites.
12 PISA is the ‘Programme for International Student Assessment’, a global assessment for 15 years old in reading, science and maths overseen by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Below I offer a short review of the literature on the globalisation of education policy in order to locate the formulation of SDG4 within the existing globalised environment of education policy.