Globalization, the strong state and education policy: the politics of policy in Asia

Lim, Leonel

doi:10.1080/02680939.2016.1181790

Cited by 51 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on education policies in Asia (e.g. Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea) has suggested that central governments still exert strong power in developing national education policies 1 (L Lim, 2016; L Lim and Apple, 2016; Sung, 2011). Accounting for historical and cultural backgrounds, nation states in Asia have actively planned and intervened in education policies, which has been instrumental in promoting the productivity of the national system (Gopinathan, 2007; IF Lee, 2018; L Lim, 2016).…”

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ball, 2012). However, international evidence of education policy in ‘strong states’ (Lim and Apple, 2016: 11)—where central governments exert strong power as a major policy actor in developing policies—suggests that the old governance perspective is still important in analyzing education policies (Lim, 2016; Lim and Apple, 2016; Sung, 2011). Given this context, overlooking the old governance perspective when analyzing education policy hinders the ability to capture a complete image of the strategies that multiple stakeholders from various fields use to generate policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the governance narrative: The dynamics of developing national educational assessment policy in South Korea

Kim

2019

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the ‘new governance’ narrative should be revised and modified to reflect context-specific details of the policy sector and styles of government. I discuss the modified network governance narrative, including how the theory of bureaucracy informs the function of network governance. I then apply it to analyze a case study of Korean educational assessment policy, specifically the National Assessment of Educational Achievement, as empirical evidence to support the claim. The case study revealed that central government was a major force in the policy development, and its bureaucratic power combined with soft and hard capital was strong. Responding to central government, opposing groups tried to change the policy by forming networks for collective action, utilizing the media and discovering flexibility within bureaucratic rules, which led to partial changes of the policy in the next regime. The study concludes with several remarks that contribute to policy analysis in education: (a) the usefulness of the modified network governance framework in analyzing policy; (b) bureaucratic structures as useful resources for stakeholders in policy; (c) educational and political beliefs as critical factors in forming and tightening networks; and (d) broader implications for understanding testing policy in Asian contexts.

show abstract

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the governance narrative: The dynamics of developing national educational assessment policy in South Korea

Kim

2019

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This implies that most countries have variations in implementing accountability policies across regions or schools within their education systems. The international research literature suggests that this may be the case (e.g., Han & Ye, 2017;Holloway et al, 2017;Kuiper et al, 2013;La Londe, 2017;Lim, 2016;Maroy et al, 2017;Rasmussen & Zou, 2014).…”

Section: No Pure Form Of Test-based Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, to some degree, a country's social and cultural norms can influence the inconsistency of responses to external controls (Rasmussen & Zou, 2014). Some societies may have high levels of agreement with governmental approaches to school systems while others may not (e.g., Klein, 2017;Lim, 2016;Lo, 2010;Maroy et al, 2017;Rasmussen & Zou, 2014). Thus, in countries where they may be underlying disagreements about which logic of accountability to follow for particular functions of schooling a mixed overall logic of accountability is inevitable.…”

Section: Possible Explanations For Mixed Forms Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responding to accountability discourses, researchers have reported theoretical debates around different forms of accountability, such as what forms of accountability ought to be considered over test-based accountability which has been dominant in education (e.g., Cranston, 2013;Fullan, Rincón-Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015;Sahlberg, 2007;Turnipseed & Darling-Hammond, 2015). In addition, researchers have empirically shown that there are multiple ways to achieve accountability across education systems internationally (e.g., Dorn & Ydesen, 2015;Klein, 2017;La Londe, 2017;Lim, 2016;Maroy, Pons, & Dupuy, 2017;Rasmussen & Zou, 2014;Thiel & Bellmann, 2017). Findings from these studies indicate that accountability policy implementation remains multifaceted depending on the context (Holloway et al, 2017;Klein, 2017), and therefore, the logics behind the implementation of accountability can differ based on historical backgrounds and structures of the education system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Logics of accountability: Cross-national patterns in school-level controls

Kim

Yun

2019

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores multiple logics of accountability by examining patterns of control of various school functions under different accountability systems. Research has shown that accountability is a global phenomenon, but how accountability is understood and enacted is locally contextualized, which implies the existence of multiple logics of accountability in practice. By linking theoretical arguments rooted in literature to empirical evidence observed in TALIS 2013, we aim to theorize logics of accountability and then demonstrate the existence of those logics across countries. We first developed a framework of logics of accountability: control-based, professional-based, test-based, and process-based accountability. We then empirically analyzed three types of control—external, internal, and mixed control—at the school level across countries and within four content areas—assessment, human resource, curriculum, and budget—to infer how each country consistently follows a logic of accountability in their schooling practices. We found that a few countries followed a relatively pure form of control-based, professional-based, and process-based logic; however, most countries followed mixed-forms of logic. Our findings provide a systematic approach for the mapping of accountability logics across countries and suggest that more thought should be paid to how the underlying logic of accountability should manifest across these different functions.

show abstract

Social, Political and Cultural Foundations of Educational Leadership in Singapore

Dimmock

Tan

Chiong

2021

The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globalization, the strong state and education policy: the politics of policy in Asia

Cited by 51 publications

References 57 publications

Revisiting the governance narrative: The dynamics of developing national educational assessment policy in South Korea

Revisiting the governance narrative: The dynamics of developing national educational assessment policy in South Korea

Logics of accountability: Cross-national patterns in school-level controls

Social, Political and Cultural Foundations of Educational Leadership in Singapore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About