Systemic Educational Improvement: New comparative theoretical debates and empirical findings

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

The field of comparative education has a long history of searching for leading educational systems to copy their reforms in other countries (Trace, 1961; Rickover, 1962; Stevenson et al., 1993). The advent of standardized tests extended this temptation, as more systematic quantitative data analysis became available. New literature emerged on the "world champions of education" (Barber and Mourshed, 2007; OECD, 2010; Tucker, 2011; Steward, 2012; Creese et al., 2015; Schleicher, 2018, Crato, 2021). The "McKinsey Report" (Mourshed et al., 2010) stands out as one of the most cited documents in education policy around the world. This “soft comparison” model was criticized for not resisting a more in-depth analysis of each context’s complex improvement processes (Alexander, 2010; Morris, 2015).
These epistemological debates refer to the dispute between positivistic forms of comparative research in education seeking generalizable laws and predictions, and more hermeneutic/interpretive perspectives developed to generate insights and improved understanding (Crossley & Watson, 2003).
In the field of school effectiveness, Fuller and Clarke (1994) present these two divided camps. On the one hand, the policy mechanics ´seek universal remedies that can be manipulated by central agencies and assume that the same instructional materials and pedagogical practices hold constant meaning in the eyes of teachers and children across diverse cultural settings´ (Fuller and Clarke, 1994: 119). On the other hand, classroom culturalists focus on specific contexts and implicit and irreplicable norms. In this perspective, ´it is the culturally constructed meanings attached to instructional tools and pedagogy that sustain this socialization process, not the material character of school inputs per se´ (idem).
However, Mjøset defends a third position, less developed in the social sciences, centered on a pragmatist attitude. Following the empiricist tradition, pragmatists retain a notion of theory as accumulated knowledge, but they do not hold the claim that knowledge can be formulated on universal laws. The pragmatists' qualitative methodologies and the grounded theory approaches facilitate the ´systematic study of constellations of singular factors´ (Mjøset, 2006: 350). In this way, the knowledge accumulated is never cut loose from specific contexts of interaction.
This panel sets out to find new ways of thinking about and researching systemic improvement in education that can escape the pitfalls of this polarized debate. The study of the improvement of educational systems is important to understand their logics and seek relevant answers to discuss with decision makers. It is important to better understand these processes and this requires rigorous research committed to improving learning and fulfilling the right to education.
But this quest must avoid numerous pitfalls and shortcuts. In this panel we propose to discuss, with empirical and theoretical research, how to study the systemic improvement of education without falling into decontextualized approaches.
Education systems with diverse political, economic, and cultural goals overflow the simplistic and measurable approach based only on standardized assessments (Ramirez, 2006). There is no single comparison metric that can reduce the achievements of an educational system. Even when there are measurements such as standardized assessments, we must consider their effects on the morphology, organization, and goals of an educational system. Research has shown that the implementation of high-stakes standardized assessments impacts the way of prioritizing teaching in the areas and years assessed and biasing the school organization towards what is assessed in the tests (Fischman et al, 2018; Lewis & Lingard, 2015).
The panel proposes to analyze the role of standardized evaluations in the study of the systemic improvement of education from a perspective that can integrate the analysis of the results with a critical look at their possible biases. Ultimately, it is about finding a dialogue between the “policy mechanics” and the “classroom culturalists”. Is it possible to find pragmatic, contextualized and compared routes that better understand the meanings of systemic improvement of education?
Using studies from different countries, improvement processes and conceptual discussions about what is meant by systemic improvement can be better understood. This panel presents studies on China, South Africa, Chile and a comparative study in three federal countries in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico). The papers analyze with empirical rigor the conceptions of improvement and the policies that were implemented in these very different contexts. Without falling into the temptations of causal explanations, the studies analyze the dilemmas and the invisible discussions that give context to each process of systemic improvement.
The central theme of the congress this year is “Improving Education for a More Equitable World”. One way to contribute to this theme is to expand the horizons and present research that dialogues between epistemological, methodological and theoretical perspectives. This panel is proposed with that objective.

Sub Unit

• Educational Improvement SIG

Chair

• Axel Rivas, Universidad de San Andres

Individual Presentations

• Building Educational Improvement Science in China: Historical and Contemporary Reflections - Jun Li, Western University

• Teacher professionalism in a context of high inequality: The case of South Africa - Melanie Ehren, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

• The Governance Platform for Improving Education: A Comparative Multi-level Case Study in Federal Countries - Axel Rivas, Universidad de San Andres

Discussant

• Antoni Verger planells, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona