European Educational
Research Journal

ISSN 1474-9041

Volume 5 Numbers 3 & 4 2006

CONTENTS [click on author's name for abstract and full text]

SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE
Public Education, Democracy and Supra- and Transnational Agencies in Europe
Guest Editor: LEJF MOOS

Lejf Moos. Editorial. What Kinds of Democracy in Education are Facilitated by Supra- and Transnational Agencies?, pages 160‑168 VIEW FULL TEXT
Gert Biesta. What’s the Point of Lifelong Learning if Lifelong Learning Has No Point? On the Democratic Deficit of Policies for Lifelong Learning, pages 169‑180
Ciaran Sugrue. A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of International Agencies on Educational Reforms and Teachers’ Lives and Work: the case of Ireland?, pages 181‑195
Stephan Gerhard Huber & Bettina Gördel. Quality Assurance in the German School System, pages 196‑209
John Krejsler. Discursive Battles about the Meaning of University: the case of Danish university reform and its academics, pages 210‑220
Stephen Carney. University Governance in Denmark: from democracy to accountability?, pages 221‑233
Katrin Hjort. De-democratisation in Denmark?, pages 234‑243
Kirsten Marie Bovbjerg. Teams and Collegiality in Educational Culture, pages 244‑253
Klaus Kasper Kofod. Leadership, Power and Democracy in and around Schools, pages 254‑262
Jonas Höög, Paul V. Bredeson & Olof Johansson. Conformity to New Global Imperatives and Demands: the case of Swedish school principals, pages 263‑275
Per F. Laursen. Ideological Power in Education, pages 276‑284

REVIEW ESSAY VIEW FULL TEXT
Christina Segerholm. Learning about European Union Financed Social Science Practice, pages 285‑289 doi:10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.152

CALL FOR PAPERS VIEW FULL TEXT
Special issue on Gender and PISA, to be published in 2008, page 290
doi:10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.152

What’s the Point of Lifelong Learning if Lifelong Learning Has No Point? On the Democratic Deficit of Policies for Lifelong Learning

GERT BIESTA University of Exeter, United Kingdom; Örebro University, Sweden

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.80

This article provides an analysis of shifts that have taken place in policy discourses on lifelong learning by organisations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union. The article documents the shifts in these discourses over time, analyses the changes in content of these discourses (both in terms of what is included and what is excluded in the discussion), and explores the intended and unintended consequences that follow from these ways of thinking about (policy for) lifelong learning. The article documents a shift towards understanding the point and purpose of lifelong learning primarily in economic terms and far less in relation to the personal and the democratic function of lifelong learning. It is argued that under the conditions of the learning economy lifelong learning itself has become understood as an individual task rather than as a collective project and that this has transformed lifelong learning from a right to a duty. This raises important questions about who has the democratic right to set the agenda for lifelong learning. It also raises important issues about the motivation for lifelong learning and points particularly towards the predicament of the lifelong learner who has to engage in forms of learning without being able to control his or her own ‘agenda’ for learning. The rise of the learning economy has also put a stress on the democratic potential of lifelong learning, which is one of the most worrying consequences of the rise of the discourse of the learning economy. Since transnational policy documents have a strong ‘agenda-setting’ function for the development of national policies and practices, it is important at a national level to be aware of the assumptions, implications and intended and unintended consequences of such policy discourses.

A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of International Agencies on Educational Reforms and Teachers’ Lives and Work: the case of Ireland?

CIARAN SUGRUE St Patrick’s College, Dublin City University, Republic of Ireland

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.80

Against a general backdrop of an international discourse on educational reform that has focused on accountability, this article provides a detailed and critical analysis of the evolution of accountability policy and practice in Irish primary and post-primary education during the past 20 years. The analysis indicates clearly that national policy agendas have been influenced and shaped in significant ways by key international organisations, despite such influences being ‘refracted’ in different ways due to traditions of schooling in the country, and the current distribution of power among the major stakeholders. The article argues that the very recent publication of inspectors’ reports for the very fist time marks a seismic shift in the Irish education system, and provides further evidence of an increase in the performativity and accountability demanded of teachers. Consequently, the article concludes, the system is at a very important crossroads where there needs to be a national debate on the kind of education system we desire for our children. The accountability path chosen will have enormous consequences for the quality of teaching and learning and the quality of our democracy. The stakes have never been higher.

Quality Assurance in the German School System

STEPHAN GERHARD HUBER Teacher Training University of Central Switzerland (PHZ) Zug, Switzerland and University of Erfurt, Federal Republic of Germany
BETTINA GÖRDEL University of Erfurt, Federal Republic of Germany

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.94

Whereas internationally the shift towards quality control of school systems started in the early 1980s, mainly promoted by transnational agencies, this development only began in Germany in the mid 1990s. However, a clear-cut change from an input-controlled and centralised to a more output-controlled, decentralised and deregulated supervision system was initiated in most of the German Länder (the states of the German Federal Republic) no more than at the beginning of the new century. Main triggers were the sobering results of German pupils in international assessment tests like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) compared to other countries which regularly assessed the school system’s performance by various means. Now, all 16 German Länder have started model projects with certain groups of schools in each state to try out how self-managing of schools or local management of schools works. They are on their way to an output-controlled steering system of school quality. Due to the federal constitutional system, the progression in this regard is differently advanced and the characteristics of the local management of schools are manifold. Nevertheless, in all Länder several concurrent aspects can be identified. The five structural components on which the new system of quality control is based are: the traditional tasks of the school supervisory authorities, external school inspections, internal self-evaluations, assessment tests for system monitoring combined with regular educational reports, and last but not least, teacher professionalisation. The fundament of this control system is an understanding of school as a self-managing organisation, which is responsible for educational, financial, and personnel matters. In this area of school self-management, Germany is just beginning to reform its highly centralised and regulated school system towards more self-managing structures at its base.

Discursive Battles about the Meaning of University: the case of Danish university reform and its academics

JOHN KREJSLER The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.110

The meaning of university and, subsequently, academics’ working conditions are rapidly changing as knowledge economy and globalisation discourses continue to deepen across the Western world. Higher education and research agendas are increasingly staged in the discursive universe of knowledge economy language: common strategies and harmonisation within Europe (the Bologna process), integration of universities into national knowledge economy strategies that adapt to signals from the World Trade Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, etc. Illustrated by the case of Danish university reform, this article traces the transition from a vanishing ‘democratic and ‘Humboldtian’’ university discourse’ toward an emerging ‘market and efficiency oriented university discourse’. Universities are being turned into organisations with self-ownership, which allegedly increases their freedom of operation on the research and education ‘market’. On the other hand, universities are under increased pressure to satisfy government demands, often at hitherto unknown levels of detail. Seen from the point of view of the academic worker, these processes become visible through a host of new social technologies that individualise and totalise researchers simultaneously through complex processes. The article highlights the point that constructive critique and fruitful counter-strategies must incorporate an in-depth understanding of the radicality of changes that are taking place in order to make a difference.

University Governance in Denmark: from democracy to accountability?

STEPHEN CARNEY Roskilde University, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.122

This article reports the findings of a Danish research council-funded project aimed at exploring a comprehensive package of management reforms in higher education instituted in Denmark since 2003. The reforms attempt to change not only the way institutions are governed but the very notion of democracy and engagement in higher education. In short, a long-established tradition for university governance based on the internal election of staff and students has been replaced by the formation of university boards comprising a majority of members external to the university. In most cases the leadership of these boards has fallen to senior executives from the commercial sector with a mandate to reform decision-making processes, to encourage the reorientation of educational programmes to the labour market, and to make research more accessible to industry and commerce. Whilst boards are responsible for the university’s development agenda (and formal development contract with the government), university rectors (vice-chancellors) and their senior management teams are given greatly increased powers to ‘run’ ‘their’ institutions. Whilst Danish universities have maintained some degree of continuity with earlier democratic/administrative forms of governance based on internal elected representation, these non-executive bodies are in the process of being marginalised by new hierarchical models of ‘executive’ governance. In the process, ‘democracy’, understood by internal stakeholders as a parliamentary political discourse based upon proportional representation, becomes an attachment to rather than a defining element of the university, posing fundamental questions about the role of such institutions in late modern society, and the place of academic staff within them.

De-democratisation in Denmark?

KATRIN HJORT The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.131

In Denmark, as in many other countries, international agendas represented by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment studies, the European Bologna process and the school effectiveness movement are important factors for educational policy. However, in national contexts, international policies become interwoven with local agendas and power relations. In Denmark, neo-liberal educational policies are linked with the present reform processes in the Danish welfare system, new public management. At the moment a political majority in Denmark has decided – without much of a prior democratic debate – to tone down the democratic statements in the objects clause of the Danish Primary Education Act. This seems odd, since traditionally, democracy has been a pillar in the self-perception and self-projection of the Danish educational system. The question dealt with in this article is whether we are dealing with de-democratisation in the Danish educational system and the Danish society, or with the development of new interpretations of democracy and a new need for a democratic debate.

Teams and Collegiality in Educational Culture

KIRSTEN MARIE BOVBJERG The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.140

In recent decades modern educational organisations have become heavily influenced by new management theories and their new ways of organising staff in teams. This trend started in private organisations with a new organisational agenda but has migrated to public organisations with the introduction of new public management (NPM) in state and municipal institutions. The working conditions for teachers have changed due to the organisational transformations and new demands for the teacher, such as flexibility, self-management and teamwork. In this article, the author suggests that, from her discussions with teachers, and her former work on personal development in work life, there seems to be a conflicting understanding of collaboration which could be grasped by exploring the distinction between the notion of teamwork and the notion of collegiality.

Leadership, Power and Democracy in and around Schools

KLAUS KASPER KOFOD The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.140

The purpose of this article is to examine the connection between school democracy and a strong principalship. The point of departure is taken as the Danish Folkeskole, the aim being to extract some general trends from this Danish case. It is shown how international trends have influenced the Danish situation, making it possible to speak of a convergence between British and Scandinavian development. The issue of school democracy has changed so that the influence of some parts of the so-called small democracy have been diminished to the advantage of the so-called big democracy. The strengthening of principalship has, however, not led to the diminishing of the small democracy. It is, on the contrary, argued that a strong principalship may enhance the possibilities of a well-functioning local democracy in the school.

Conformity to New Global Imperatives and Demands: the case of Swedish school principals

JONAS HÖÖG Umeå University, Sweden
PAUL V. BREDESON University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
OLOF JOHANSSON Umeå University, Sweden

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.140

Over the past three decades, the forces of globalisation – economic, political and cultural – have significantly affected institutions and people across the world: altering in some ways the very terrain of public and private life. Public education has in no small way been challenged by new realities and new demands in an increasingly interdependent yet competitive world environment. School principals are uniquely positioned as formal leaders of diverse and complex educational systems to mediate the often times opposing forces of globalisation and localism with their communities. This article examines school leaders’ understanding of their work and their work role priorities, especially with regard to teaching and learning, within a policy environment characterised by increasingly convergent policy and leadership discourse. Two major questions are addressed, theoretically and empirically: in what ways do school principals in Sweden, which has strong democratic traditions, address the tension between localism and national interests and the press for conformity to new global imperatives and demands; and to what degree, if any, has globalisation created a new hegemony in school leadership? It is concluded that school principals in Sweden respond to questions about their schools without any reference to new global imperatives and demands. Their attention was generally related to national demands. Also, we see no clear evidence that globalisation has created a new hegemony in school leadership in Sweden.

Ideological Power in Education

PER F. LAURSEN The Danish University of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.140

This article agues that ideological power plays an important role in education and that it is part of a general trend in policy and social sciences to underestimate ideological and overestimate the role of political and economic power. The article sketches a concept of power in general and especially of ideological power based primarily on the work of sociologists Anthony Giddens and Michael Mann. The role of ideological power is illustrated by discussing the recent trend towards flexible schooling. The emerging flexible school organisation was analysed in an empirical study of the most prominent Danish project of school development in recent years, the SKUB-project from 1998 to 2006. One school in particular, Hellerup School, was constructed and built as part of the project and it is aspects of this institution and its practices that are presented. The study shows that communication, methods of teaching, and techniques of discipline were changed compared to traditionally organised schools. What politicians, administrators, school leaders and teachers were primarily concerned about in developing the new school organisation was the ideological question about legitimacy: does this kind of school organisation and practice seem reasonable to students, parents, and public opinion, and is it in harmony with contemporary organisations in general? New ways of organising schools and the introduction of new frameworks do not necessarily result in reformed teaching practices. But in the case of SKUB and Hellerup they actually did so. The reason was that the new frameworks made possible methods of teaching that students accepted more readily than the traditional ones. Educational development is not only the result of political and economic powers but also of what seems reasonable to students, teachers, parents, and public opinion. Ideology matters in education.

© SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS
Symposium Journals is the trading name of wwwords Ltd
PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 9ZQ, United Kingdom
info@symposium-journals.co.uk
www.symposium-journals.co.uk