Globalization, Policy Borrowing, And "Pseudo Comparative Education"

• In Event: Multi-level policy perspectives on assessments and education reform

Abstract

Policy borrowing or policy transfer has been a hot topic in recent years because of the education globalization and some international student surveys such as PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS. In many countries around the world, it is usually claimed by the government that its education reform is to build the “world class” education system; China and England are two of the most representative ones. What's interesting is, while China is sparing no effort to build “world-class” universities, England, in the contrast, is making great effort for the “world class” (primary and secondary) schools at the same time. Both China and England regard each other as a model of learning respectively in the fields of basic education and higher education. Not only government officials, who visit each other frequently, but also the researchers are interested in each other's education characteristics and strengths.
Because of the preference for policy borrowing, there are lots of research products, produced by some international organizations, intermediary agencies or education researchers, which are claimed as deriving from international comparison, but actually are “Pseudo comparative education” research works, such as some reports of PISA, which is a famous international program conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the McKinsey Report, produced by the consulting company McKinsey, on which the English government’s educational reform plan—the White paper 2010--relies heavily as its source of evidence. In the UK, while proponents described this kind of research as a "New Paradigm" and be proud of it, critics made increasingly in-depth criticisms, arguing that it lacks academic rigor and is merely used to legitimize preferred policies. In China, in order to undertake or complete certain projects or publish more articles in a short period, some Chinese researchers are willingly to be academic dealers, producing a large number of “academic rubbish” based on policy borrowing, because it can be used conveniently to make up exciting stories about foreign countries, not only for governments but also for scholars and researchers.
By answering the questions of why there is a preference for policy borrowing/transfer, what is “pseudo comparative education” and why it is so prevalent, this paper argues that “pseudo comparative education” which rooted in the preference for policy borrowing/transfer usually leads to patchworks of international comparative data, with lots of mistakes, omissions and selective using of evidence.
By the analysis of the case of England and China, this paper makes the conclusion: In some OECD member countries and many developing countries, there is a common occurrence of education reforms supported by policy making strategy based on "policy borrowing/transfer". Many countries itch to implement policies proposed by those "pseudo comparative education" researches. In some cases, its harmness is more than merely legitimize pre-existing priorities, weakening the scientific nature of education reform plan and education policy, sometimes it is also a hazard or an obstacle for these countries’ educational aspirations and reform process. Moreover, "Pseudo comparative education” and education policies based on it are harmful not only to education systems but also to the academic reputation of comparative education. Comparative education academic community should make efforts consciously to criticize and resist it.

Author

• Xiangxu Wang, Institute of International and Comparative Education, Beijing Normal University