Many studies have been performed related to comparative education. Some are much more prominent than others; some are of a more positivistic bent while others are more reflexive;
and most are of little use by themselves if the ultimate goal is to understand the relationship between education, change and society. What they all seem to have in common is that they carry with them a degree of ontological bias, which speaks little to the way in which an object of inquiry is explored but speaks volumes about the reasons behind the exploration in the first place. In a sense, one should be grateful for comparisons of education systems in hopes of learning something about how learning can take place; from another perspective, however, it becomes all too apparent that very little of substantive value can be learned by engaging with the lion’s share of the studies, as most are based on the results of standardized tests.
Assessment standards are complicated subjects, and most educators would likely agree that education without assessment would be a fool’s errand. It is not the intention of the author to suggest that assessment as such should be banished from the school experience, because to suggest as much would call into question the logic behind credentialism, a topic which will be explored briefly in Chapter 4. Although approaches have been developed which allow for the skirting of traditional assessment procedures, it is thoroughly unrealistic to expect that assessment as it is generally performed throughout school systems will be abandoned entirely. The point here is to engage critically – although not yet theoretically – with the idea behind comparative, standardized, internationalized exams as the basis for international comparison. Alternative approaches will be proposed in the discussion section of the dissertation, at which point the theoretical, historical, social and cultural contours of the comparison between the German and Indian education systems will have been made clear.
Before shifting to the topic of assessment and ranking, it would be beneficial to briefly review the evolution of comparative educational studies. According to Isabell van Ackeren and Dominique Klein (2012), early studies in comparative education showed that the principle of performance was not the sole arbiter of life chances; rather, the selection process itself, and its related dynamics, had a larger effect (779). It is interesting that performance, and the way in which performance is measured, namely via assessment, was less important than selection, although it must be noted that the inherent connection between the selection process and performance is not examined in any kind of detail. The original
10
impulse to create a system whereby education systems could be compared scientifically is credited to Marc Antoine Jullien (1775-1848), who posited that such a scientifically oriented comparison would allow each party in the comparison to profit in the sense of the development of quality standards (Qualitätsentwicklung) (781).
This initial impulse morphed over the centuries into what has become a typology of sorts regarding international comparisons of education systems. According to the typology developed by Wolfgang Hörner, there are four types of comparisons in the field: first, an ideographical comparison whereby the comparison can be deduced from the particularities of educational phenomenon; second, an experimental comparison whereby universal principles can be sought via the analysis of different country-specific contexts; third, a melioristic comparison whereby the cognitive interest is framed by the motivation to learn from the experiences of other countries; and last, an evolutionary comparison whereby the development of school systems in different countries is the focus of the analysis (Hörner referenced in Ackeren and Klein 2012: 781).
While typologies can be useful in that they provide the analyst with a frame of reference for comparing two unlike things, there are inherent problems in the one presented here, problems which call into question the efficacy of employing such a typology in the first place. Although a more nuanced understanding of these problems will emerge in the theory chapters, it is necessary to point out here that the first two points are hugely problematic from a philosophy of science perspective and that the third point has the potential, if not approached correctly, of reflecting and even embracing hegemonic power relations. The fourth point, the evolutionary comparison, is the only appropriate one insofar as it does not contain value judgments, power relations or claims to universality and is open enough to allow for a pluralistic comparison.
Some extant comparative studies and surveys are to be admired for their comprehensiveness. Anthony Heath and Alice Sullivan (2013), for example, compared what they referred to as the democratization of upper secondary education in China, England, Wales, France, Germany, Japan and Sweden, and through the comparison were able to probe the relationships between the “democratization of rates of access” and “democratization in terms of equality of opportunity” (123). The field which they chose to survey was broad yet, with the exception of China, thoroughly rooted in the Global North. With specific regard to the relationship between democratization and social structure, they tentatively conclude: “the
11
spread of education, treated not as a positional good but as access to a range of (criterion-referenced) skills and know-how, may itself come to shift the balance of power between the classes” (137). Although this conclusion appears to be a mere practice in stating the obvious, it at least reflects an effort to understand the relationship between access and opportunity.
The critique mentioned above – that the Global North is overemphasized in the study – is not unique to the authors mentioned. In fact, this geographical bias is apparent across the spectrum of comparative studies and not only with regard to comparative studies in education. This idea will be parsed in Chapters 3 and 4, but it is worth mentioning here that, just as one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, one instance of bias does not entirely invalidate an argument. Instead, it brings about an opportunity for reflection. That being said, geographical bias – one could also label this phenomenon Eurocentrism – is a problem in the literature. For instance, in a volume edited by Hermann Röhrs and Volker Lenhart (1995) titled Progressive Education across the Continents, only three out of thirty chapters are about countries in what can be referred to as the Global South, causing one to question the editors’ word choice concerning the title of the book. Words are, after all, important, but the critique here is not really semantic. The epistemological consequences of the approach will be explored in Chapter 3.
In Education, Equality and Social Cohesion: A Comparative Analysis, written by Andy Green, John Preston and Jan Germen Janmaat (2006), the authors are primarily concerned with the ways in which educational policy interacts with other forms of cohesion-inducing social structures – namely those pertaining to welfare and labor market regulation – to form an enduring kind of social cohesion (9). The approach, focused on the Nordic states, Germany, Japan and Canada, is predicated on the long and sometimes contradictory social democratic tradition. Post-modern notions of power and society are acknowledged but these are eschewed in the overall analysis in favor of looking at the relationship between education and social democracy. For the purposes of this dissertation, which seeks to transcend political universalisms (for example, social democracy versus liberal democracy), the study is of little ideological use. The methodology employed by the authors, the Qualitative Comparative
12
Analysis,8 provides insight into the way in which questions of comparative education can be addressed from the perspective of a well-defined political point of departure. So much is conveyed in one of the book’s concluding sentences: “Countries which achieve more equal education and which, on our evidence, benefit therefrom in social cohesion, are countries which believe in the virtues of equality and which design their education systems to enhance it” (186). Phrased differently, countries with social democratic traditions are likely to act social-democratically, an entirely banal conclusion.
The most intellectually comprehensive comparative study of education, Robert Ulich’s (1962) The Education of Nations: A Comparison in Historical Perspectives does not appear to feature prominently in contemporary studies. Although the work is admittedly biased in its focus on nations in the Global North, the approach outlined is centered on pluralistic understanding, rendering it a fascinating read for scholars wishing to grasp the complexities of the interactions between history, public policy, culture and education. Perhaps Ulich’s biographical details – he was a German academic who emigrated to the USA in 1934 – gave him a more comprehensive and demanding perspective on comparative studies. After differentiating early on in his book between education and learning, with the former being categorized as a “a conscious and institutionalized enterprise of humanity”, he contends: “If we wish to understand [schools and school systems] we have to relate them to the surrounding political, cultural and economic forces” (vi). Ulich is thoroughly rooted in the European tradition, but his survey is valuable insofar as it is critical. His bias toward Eurocentric humanistic education is apparent throughout. For example, he argues: “What happens to national and educational institutions that pretend to live on ideals they no longer take seriously? They lose what Nietzsche regards as the essential goals of all education:
moral strength and honesty of character” (209). This idea and the ideas behind it are not free
8 The Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method is very much appealing in that it allows the analyst to parse data on the basis of seemingly arbitrary yet theoretically/qualitatively substantiated lines of difference and provides a nifty formula based on Boolean algebra through which the comparative social world can be comprehended. Such an approach would not match the spirit of the work at hand, which is aimed first and foremost at the working out of a particular-yet-global social phenomenon: the reproduction of social inequalities through education. What is more, the QCA method only works when comparing an absolute minimum of five objects of inquiry (Ragin 1987). In any event, in the context of the work presented here, facts and figures are only significant insofar as they augment the reader’s imagination or understanding of the topic.
13
of problems, but the author’s insistence on understanding being the primary goal of comparative educational studies is admirable, especially in the context of what has become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of comparison, namely standardized test results.
By focusing on the global spread of educational approaches, Ronald K. Goodenow (1990) attempts to develop a framework for conceptualizing John Dewey’s impact on education throughout the world, with specific reference to the so-called Third World. He summarizes Dewey’s main conceptual impact thusly: “A vehicle for relating education to the everyday world of work and community life, it was directed as well at eliminating the evils of nineteenth-century industrialism as it affected the exploitation of the child in the emergent city” (24). After briefly discussing the diffusion of so-called progressive education in Mexico, India and Chile, the author concludes that it is extremely difficult to measure the effects of ideas and how they spread (25). Included in his analysis is literature that links the ideas of John Dewey and Mohandas Gandhi. Reflecting to a strong degree the spirit of this dissertation, Goodenow argues: “Progressive education, as numerous scholars of American education have indicated, has also been highly complex and often contradictory in character – both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’” (24). This ideological morass, and the way it can be overcome, will be explored in Chapter 7. Some kind of combination of the approaches of Ulich and Goodenow, with their respective focuses on ideas and understanding, approximates the spirit of this dissertation.
When it comes to both the critical juncture and the units of comparison, Masako Shibata’s (2005) Japan and Germany under the U.S. Occupation: A Comparative Analysis of the Post-War Education Reform is perhaps the most similar extant study, but there are some significant differences. Shibata seeks to understand the influence of the American occupiers on the trajectory of educational reforms in each place beginning in 1945. While this influence is no doubt important, the danger of such a study is that it places too much emphasis on occupation policy and does not delve sufficiently into the overall historical-educational and ideological landscape, further bolstering the widespread misunderstanding that, at least as concerns educational policy in the Federal Republic, the Americans had a profound and lasting effect. As will be explored in Chapter 5, the pushback against the educational vision of the American occupiers on the part of German educators was perhaps even more significant in shaping reform (or lack thereof) than was actual American policy. The heavy handed
14
approach to denazification had the effect of re-entrenching the very pillar of educational conservatism, the tripartite system, which it sought to disassemble.
Other comparative studies rely on vast datasets to provide comparisons of narrowly defined phenomena and appear disconnected from larger thematic perspectives. Sandra Hupka-Brunner et al (2011), for example, approach questions about how similar the German and Swiss education systems are in their approaches to disadvantaged students and how similar pupils’ outcomes are quantitatively (62). They come to the conclusion that new strategies need to be developed in both countries to support what they refer to as disadvantaged students (76). Such studies contribute a modicum of understanding to how comparisons can be approached. What is more, they reaffirm the necessity to couch comparisons in a pluralistic understanding of the relationship between education, culture, history and society, for without reference to this relationship, data-driven studies are essentially presented in a vacuum, inhibiting the recognition of important correlations, relations and even contradictions.
While a critical analysis of the genealogy of comparative education studies, further filling in the blanks between Jullien and Hörner, would be fascinating, it would be altogether peripheral to the task at hand. That being said, it is necessary to jump to what is by far the most respected and, in some respects, feared comparative assessment of education systems, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the standardized exams are conducted among pupils of member states (plus others) on a triennial basis. The results are then tabulated and states’ performance indicators are reflected in a kind of league-table.
The thematic emphases vary from examination phase to examination phase. Interesting here are not the results of the exams, which can also be found triennially in mainstream newspapers, but the perceived impacts the results have on understanding education systems.
Before discussing the prickly relationship between PISA results and policymaking, however, the PISA approach should be exposed to a critique. Nina Bonderup Dohn (2007), after conceding that the PISA studies have a “reasonable intention” in what they are attempting to assess (2), launches into a full-throated critique of PISA’s approach and methodology:
15
PISA assesses, with some degree of reliability, knowledge and skills for PISA. No more, no less. That is, PISA assesses how well students are able to exercise knowledge and skills within the PISA focus areas in precisely one ‘real life setting’, namely a survey test situation (10).
Dohn is not alone in her critique, although hers is likely the most barbed. Kerstin Martens and Dennis Niemann (2013), level a similar albeit less inflammatory criticism: “…PISA is obviously not ideologically unbiased but rather evaluates education from an economic perspective and promotes, according to this paradigm, related learning techniques” (315).
While reading such critiques is enjoyable for anyone who has experienced such exams, they are certainly not unique to the PISA assessments. In fact, anyone who has taught at most any educational level has likely encountered the question, “Will this be on the test?” That value is placed on narrow performance, and that narrow performance is something for which pupils or students can prepare or be prepared, goes without saying.
The central point of Dohn’s critique, however, is not that administering a seemingly objective test like PISA with the expectation that something measurable will emerge is only disingenuous; rather, it is that the test itself contains a great deal of bias. To wit: “…the expectation that there will be no test item that can be found to be biased or ambiguous is probably too severe. After all, mistakes do happen” (Dohn 2007: 11). This entertaining line is followed by a more substantive criticism: “…one is dismayed at the number of test items that are culturally biased, ambiguously formulated, confusing on account of misprints, down-right erroneous or furnished with highly questionable answering keys” (11). These criticisms are not confined to musty academic journals. The British Broadcasting Corporation (2013), for example, had this to say about the rise of PISA rankings:
[PISA] league tables emerged about the same time as universities first experienced being listed like football clubs. It was an unfamiliar approach, but ranking has spread like ivy over ancient institutions. Everyone stands back and says it's a terrible over-simplification - and then starts planning ways to get higher (Coughlan 2013).
In spite of these widespread and even mainstream criticisms, PISA has been able to reach fairly broad conclusions based on the results that emerge from the exams. According to the OECD (2010), for example, the PISA studies all indicate that there is a systematic correlation between school performance and social background (in fact, Germany was one of
16
the “worst” in this regard) (OECD 2010a: 785). This is a noble conclusion, but if the assessment process is flawed, it begs the question as to whether it can be taken seriously.
According to another OECD analysis in the same year: “Systems that show high performance and an equitable distribution of learning outcomes tend to be comprehensive, requiring teachers and schools to embrace diverse student populations thought personalised education pathways” (OECD 2010b: 13). Again, this is a milquetoast conclusion behind which any educator with a progressive inclination would gladly stand. The authors continue: “School systems that assume that students have different destinations with different expectations and differentiation in terms of how they are placed in schools, classes and grades often show less equitable outcomes without an overall performance advantage” (OECD 2010b: 13). It is almost beyond belief that the OECD can reach such conclusions on the basis of biased assessment procedures. This would pass as unproblematic notwithstanding the fact that policymakers take the results very seriously.
The PISA results are taken so seriously, in fact, that they shape public policy, and this fact has more or less been taken for granted just as the problems associated with PISA have been ignored. Meg Maguire (2010), for example, asserts: “Many nations, aware of international comparisons such as…PISA, have been spurred on to reform their educational provision and raise their measurable levels of attainment” (59). This relationship between rankings and action is widespread throughout contemporary institutions. In the context of academia, one recognizes the tension between university activities and ranking endeavors.
The PISA results are taken so seriously, in fact, that they shape public policy, and this fact has more or less been taken for granted just as the problems associated with PISA have been ignored. Meg Maguire (2010), for example, asserts: “Many nations, aware of international comparisons such as…PISA, have been spurred on to reform their educational provision and raise their measurable levels of attainment” (59). This relationship between rankings and action is widespread throughout contemporary institutions. In the context of academia, one recognizes the tension between university activities and ranking endeavors.