Global policy convergence through “distributed governance”? The emergence of “national” education standards in the US and Germany

Abstract

This article focuses on the discussion of global policy convergence through the implementation of “distributed governance” within the education policy sector. Here, the focus is directed at the emergence of national education standards (NES) as a simultaneous instrument of fair school control and performance increase. Both the US and Germany show a high traditional resistance to nationally centralised educational control, but experienced a massive transformation in this direction by the recent implementation of a national core curriculum initiative (National Education Standards in Germany and Common Core State Standards in the US). This article will rely on global governance and distributed governance research, focusing on the concept of “heterarchies”, to analyse the interplay of global and national contexts in the case of the rise of NES in the US and Germany, ultimately showing the concepts' contributions (and limits) to explain policy convergence.

Towards a topological re-assemblage of education policy? Observing the implementation of performance data infrastructures and ‘centers of calculation’ in Germany

“…In many parts of the world, yet in varied extent and scope, this turn towards (better) data stands in close relation to standards-based reform initiatives as well as to a growing orientation towards educational output and accountability (Hartong 2015). Applying the idea of topological assemblages, while there occurs an overall rise of new assemblages and topologies through the implementation of performance data infrastructures and new 'centers of calculation', the shape of these assemblages, the functionality of single pieces within (e.g., the role and scope of PISA), and also the internal relation between pieces may look very different.…”

“…The German 'turn' towards data infrastructuralisation after PISA 4 Germany as a system where the different states (Länder) hold almost all responsibility for educational governance (and more or less only for that policy field) is a good example of how the global trend of performance data infrastructuralisation in education evoked very ambivalent policy (re-)assemblage processes. In Germany, a combination of different factors in the past resulted in a strong resistance against large-scale reform, particularly against supra-state control or incisive (performance, data-based) accountability measures (Hartong 2015). One factor is a fairly high level of teacher professionalism/autonomy within a state-controlled input system, which exerted […] weak control and evaluation of the processes and almost no external control of the outcomes [such as performance data] of schooling.…”

“…With regard to data infrastructures, the PISA-shock reflected the growing topological influence of international largescale databases and comparative educational monitoring instruments, which, by that time, had also been intensively promoted by the European Union (e.g., the European Qualification Framework or the Europass). The emergence of PISA and other international large-scale monitoring system ultimately provoked a substantial transformation within the German field of educational research (Aljets 2015), which opened up a unique opportunity for particular empirical research institutions (which also served as the German PISA-consortium) to become core leaders in the post-PISA policy agenda (Hartong 2015), including the implementation and expansion of performance data infrastructures.…”

Democracy and National Education Standards

“…In the next few years, Americans will likely debate whether the country should adopt national education standards in the areas of social studies, science, and sexuality education (Engebretson 2014;Pruitt 2014;Schmidt, Wandersman, and Hills 2015). Though the context of this article is the United States, similar debates are happening in democracies around the world (Hartong 2015).…”

Steering in complex education systems. Why similar aims can have dramatically different results.

“…More recently this line of work is extended to new distributed forms of educational governance involving state, market and private actors (e.g. Hartong 2015). Education systems are now 'complex' meaning that a wide variety of actors exercise influence from multiple layers and multiple centers (Ostrom 2010).…”