Tag: education policy

Making Sense of CPD Policy: The Quest for Transformation of Teacher Professionalism in Malaysia

On By cireramosIn Doctoral researchersLeave a comment

By Faizulizami Osmin

Amis Viva

Faizulizami Osmin recently completed her PhD (above a picture captured right after the Viva). We celebrate her success and give a flavour of some of the excellent doctoral research carried out by CIRE members. We share the abstract for her dissertation.

This research investigates how teachers in Malaysia are experiencing recent changes in the direction of their Continuing Professional Development (CPD) which have shaped their sense of professionalism. The new CPD policy known as the Pelan Pembangunan Professionalisme Berterusan (PPPB), has been developed by the Ministry of Education but is profoundly influenced by the results of international student assessments. It is intended as an instrument to develop a teaching workforce that would turn Malaysia into a top performing nation in international assessments, such as (and particularly) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Teachers, however, must understand the choices and decisions made by the Government and to accept, adapt or ignore the possibilities created for their professional development. The research in this study is guided by a review of international literature on educational change, the influences of globalisation on policy trends and practices as well as teacher professionalism.

The research adopted interpretivism as an epistemological stance and has two strands. The PPPB policy was investigated through review and interviews with policymakers involved in writing the policy. Teachers’ perspectives on the policy were collected through focus groups and individual face-to-face interviews. By exploring teachers’ perspectives on policy rhetoric, the Spectrum of CPD Model developed by Kennedy (2014) is employed to analyse and evaluate the policy. Indeed, this is especially useful in determining the level of synchronisation between the directions set in the policy and the policy’s intended outcomes. The findings suggested that teachers question and challenge the nature of the policy and its implementation which have adversely affected their mindset and attitude, in turn, impacting their involvement and commitment towards implementing the present system-wide reform.

When the PPPB Model of CPD is positioned within the global context of teacher professionalism, it is argued that the dominant conception of professionalism reflects rather, a managerial perspective and adopts a standards-based approach. In other words, professionalism relates to the needs of an individual teacher to meet and maintain prescribed government standards. Further, it was found that a collaborative concept of professionalism within the policy is limited, indicating that teachers continue to remain a compliant workforce. Although professionalism is being cast into the direction that the Government considers to be the best fit, in the current teaching profession, teachers are deploying and working towards different concepts of professionalism. Therefore, this transformation strategy, for teacher professionalism, could be much better understood as the Government’s attempt to change not only the public’s perception of teachers and teaching but also how teachers themselves view their own professional roles and practice.

Nevertheless, some teachers may have struggled in the process of changing their existing controlled-compliant professionalism (which requires them to comply with the Government’s change agenda) into more collaborative-activist professionalism that adopts collaborative work cultures. In this vein, professionalism emerging from the managerial and democratic discourses is not static or two-dimensional but instead, evolves and changes according to the teachers’ working conditions thereby allowing the teachers to embrace several discourses of professionalism simultaneously. In brief, this study represents the relationship between CPD and professionalism and the range of conflicting models that co-exist when a system is in a state of change. It highlights the unevenness of change and the contradictory views of CPD-professionalism that it can generate.

Reflections on Kenneth King’s talk, “Lost in Translation? Learning Challenges in the SDG4 Target-to-Indicator Process”

On By leanne_againIn CIRE Guest Speakers, CIRE Masters StudentsLeave a comment

Below, CIRE Members and Msc students Sabah Hussein Shide, Doris Asimeng, and Chris Doel reflect on their impressions and the questions, yet to be answered, that arose in their consideration of Kenneth King’s recent talk on Sustainable Development Goal 4.

Sabah Hussein Shide: Problematic indicators and educational quality

Professor Kenneth King presented a lively and stimulating discussion on the fourth Sustainable Development Goal for education (SDG4) titled: Lost in Translation? Learning Challenges in the SDG4 Target-to-Indicator Process. Whilst many aspects of this presentation resonated with me, I will share my reflections on just one of the issues raised which was the narrowing and reducing of education goals into useable global indicators.

Professor King highlighted the inconsistency with the claim that SDG 4 resulted from ‘the most inclusive process of consultation in the history of the United Nations’ (Naidoo, cited in King, 2017). Yet, arguably the most important task of translating these into achievable targets and essentially the process of global indicator development has been principally left to technical experts (in UN’s Inter-Agency Expert Group). This, King argued, has resulted in the omission of vital, qualitative aspects of some of the globally agreed targets whilst other aspects have been misrepresented, bearing little resemblance to the idealistic goals they represent.

Professor King gave some striking examples, like that of SDG 4.3 & 4.4 where equal access for all to ‘quality technical, vocational and tertiary education’ and increasing numbers ‘who have relevant skills, including technical & vocational skills for employment, decent jobs & entrepreneurship.’ Which gets translated into a global indictor that only aims to measure the ‘proportion of youth and adults with information & communications technology (ICT) skills, by type of skill’ And ‘quality technical and vocational’ becomes merely ‘participation rate in formal & non-formal education & training’ in last 12 months.

It struck me that whilst on the one hand the ‘right things’ are relatively easy to identify and say in a global declaration of sorts, it is clearly far more difficult to measure in any meaningful way. Instead what we are left with is a mismatch between the global education targets highlighted in SDG4 and the indicators that are said to measure the progress towards these. For me, as an inherently qualitative-focused individual, the idea that an area such as education which is multifaceted and complex can be reduced to that which can be measured or counted is hugely problematic and needs redressing.

It also made me question the extent to which the same goals that are supposed to be levelling the playing field and raising the education standards of all countries around the world are instead effectively eroding the scope of education to enrich and empower beyond statistically compliant measures. For countries that continue to pursue their national goals in conjunction with regional and global goals and targets, perhaps the limitations set by SDG4 indicators can be overcome more easily. However, my concern is more for developing countries that are more likely to internalise global goals and agendas, sometimes at the cost of national and regional goals. Can relevant skills such as ‘…technical & vocational skills for employment, decent jobs & entrepreneurship’ in these countries really be reduced to just ‘ICT skills’?

Doris Asimeng: Whose expertise?

A system is being set up in which only the global indicators will be used for the key annual SDG Report. What happens therefore to the priorities set by, for example, the African Union’s Agenda 2063, with its very different deadline? Or to countries, such as China, with their Five-Year Plans? Do countries have to accommodate the 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs within their own agreed national plans? Assumption of a Global Governance concept – a problem: Who are they? Where are they? And what power do they have over nations? (King, 2017 Slide 14)

The above excerpt from the presentation from Kenneth King summed up my sentiments about the global influence on policy making at the national level. I had not given much thought to the targets and indicators of the SDG 4 until that presentation. Indeed I became familiar with the SDG 4 last term whilst researching an assignment on quality education. In my quest to know more about EFA and SDGs, in particular, the influence of global actors on national policy in respect of EFA attracted me to this seminar.

It was interesting to learn from King that there has been a dilution of indicators used for measuring the targets set for the SDGs. The key idea I took from the presentation was the conflict and tension that nations, especially those from the developing countries face in meeting these SDG indicators which take no cognisance of national and regional educational plans as shown in the quote above.

The involvement of OECD-DAC in developing indicators for SDGs was revealing. King pointed out that ‘the vital process of global indicator development has been principally left to technical experts (in UN’s Inter-Agency Expert Group)’. He did not elaborate on the constituent members of the group but my personal guess is that the group is likely to be dominated by OECD countries.

In the final analysis, the presentation clearly contributed to my research on the influences of the global on national policies of countries in the area of the EFA Framework.

Chris Doel: Local contexts and technocrats

The opening question ‘Lost in translation?’ relating to SDG4, was apt for a group of MSc students embarking on research into the significance of SDG4 and global education policy in a UK context.

The session explored the intricacies of global policy that does not really take into account the realities of local contexts. Of course, local contexts are alluded to in the goals, and not just in SDG4; but how are less developed countries supposed to implement SDG4 if some, or all of the goals, do not align with local contexts? This is the case in developed countries too where it is right to assume that the SDGs are not widely known about, or they are ‘managed’ and ‘implemented’ (if at all) by ministries not aligned with education. Let us take the UK context where DfID have the responsibility to implement SDG4 but do not communicate directly with the DfEE. Therefore, what is the significance of global education policy when, it is argued, many developing countries are implementing SDG4 whilst many (Northern) states are not. How can the SDGs be achieved? Is there ever going to be equity across the globe in terms of how people are educated? Do the UK see SDG as a national or international education policy?

Are the SDGs achievable? It would seem that other hurdles are already in place (unwittingly). Such hurdles contradict the advertised nature of setting up the SDGs because of the proposed failure of the preceding EFA and MDGs. Where was the transparent democratic process? What about ‘targets’ and ‘monitoring’.

Not only are there targets, but indicators too: the latter being developed by ‘technocrats’, as opposed to the publicised consultative process leading up to the implementation of the SGDs in September 2015. ‘It is claimed that SDG 4 resulted from ‘the most inclusive process of consultation in the history of the United Nations’. By contrast, the vital process of global indicator development has been principally left to technical experts. It is claimed that the ‘global indicator framework will be simple yet robust’, but how? For SDG 4’s 10 targets there are 11 global indicators and 32 thematic indicators; there will also be regional and national indicators; it would be interesting to ascertain whether such ‘regional indicators’ have been contextualised. What happens to quality learning and children’s rights to education, where only 11 global ones are the main source of data for the UN’s annual SDG reports?

Therefore, ‘global governance by targets and indicators’. Linked closely to this we see that there is also a closely aligned relationship between the public and the private, which highlights the ambiguous nature of ‘free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education’ (SGD4.1). This begs the question of ‘whether such partnerships undermine education as a human right’. The relationship between the public and the private will always be a contested one and could jeopardise the intended aims of SDG4. Which members in the global society will miss out? The poor and vulnerable? However, the private sector could raise awareness of SDG4 which is not widely known about, let alone understood.

Kenneth King concluded on an assumption of global governance, posing the following question: The Final, Bigger Question: Global, Regional or National Priorities? Which brings us back to the ‘targets’ and ‘indicators’ discussed earlier. What about priorities set by individual countries that may not necessarily have the same priorities as the global community? What happens, for example, to the priorities set by the African Union’s Agenda 2063, with its very different deadline? OR ‘countries, such as China, with their Five-Year Plans?’ There are 17 goals and 169 targets; how are these to be integrated into national plans? There is also the ‘Assumption of a Global Governance concept’ (which is) a problem: Who are they? Where are they? And what power do they have over nations? This is all to be taken into consideration within national and local political contexts. What about the political shift to the Right? Will SDG4 be a priority and align with national politics (King)?

Echoes from the field: Meeting gatekeepers

On By leanne_againIn Doctoral researchers, Fieldwork reflectionsLeave a comment

16716167_10154395149407549_2697571276313872087_oJane Nebe is a 2nd Year PhD student at the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol. Her research is investigating the consequences that poor academic performance in Nigeria’s high-stakes examinations, have on post-secondary school educational aspirations. 

I stood before him with a smile. An elderly man with grey hairs, standing tall and confident. He was holding white chalks, about four pieces of them. It’s been a while that I saw white chalks. For some seconds, I fixed my gaze on the white chalks as it brought back forgotten memories – copying notes from blackboards as a student, writing on blackboards as a teacher and secretly chewing white chalks when the craving arose. But I was not there to see white chalks. I was there to get access to meet potential participants for my research. Papa, as he is fondly called, was the first gatekeeper I met as I commenced fieldwork. Papa teaches and supervises activities, at a privately owned coaching centre for secondary school students and leavers, who are preparing to write Nigeria’s high-stakes examinations. The high-stakes examinations are for certification and selection into higher educational institutions. He returned my smile with a smile of his own as I began to introduce myself.

white chalks

My PhD research is exploring the lived experiences of secondary school leavers who wrote the secondary school exit Certificate Examinations (CEs) in Nigeria, in order to understand how poor academic performance in the CEs initiates consequences on educational aspirations. On 27th December 2016, I returned to Nigeria to commence data collection using a Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research (MMPR) Design. After a pilot phase, qualitative data was collected using Life-Grid charts and interviews. The preliminary analysis of the qualitative data, the stage I am presently in, is informing the design of the questionnaires that will be administered in the next phase, after being piloted. Getting supportive gatekeepers has been easier than anticipated, but I cannot say the same for getting actual participants who meet the criteria for selection. As I continue with the preliminary analysis of my qualitative data, I see potential ways of improving my sampling strategy and design, in order to enrich my research findings. But time is a factor I must take into consideration if I intend to make any revision in the next phase of my research design.

Exif_JPEG_420

Reflecting on my fieldwork experience so far, I am grateful to all the gatekeepers that I am working with presently. Prior to our first encounters, I neither knew nor had met any of them. I am impressed by how much they value knowledge and wish to be a part of something that would seemingly extend the frontiers of knowledge. They have provided the platforms for me to address potential participants. They have allowed me to use their space as the venue for collecting data. I have had some of them refer me to other places I can find potential participants. They have always welcomed me pleasantly when I arrive. And yes, Papa tried to match-make me with one of his handsome teachers. Perhaps, I would have given it some thought, if I did not have to explain its ethical implications for my research. For now, I will just focus on collecting ‘rich data’.

Student Voices in SDG4 and Education 2030

On By leanne_againIn CIRE Masters StudentsLeave a comment

Beth Button, current MSc. Education (Education Policy and International Development) student, reports on participating in the recent SDG4 and Education 2030 regional consultation meeting. Beth is an executive committee member for the European Students’ Union, responsible for representing students studying in higher education across Europe and campaigning and lobbying on educational issues within Europe and internationally. 

The regional consultation meeting for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4) and the Education 2030 agenda took place on the 24th and 25th of October at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Attended by government representatives from Europe and North America, NGOs, and foundations’ representatives, the meeting assessed governmental progress on SDG4 and proposed recommendations to strengthen regional cooperation and monitoring of the targets.

As a representative of the European Students’ Union (ESU), I was present to offer student input, host a discussion on our work on national student movement engagement, and contribute to the discussions that took place regarding the region’s priority areas for the coming year, such as quality of education, skills and competencies, and education for refugees and migrants.

unesco

One of the thematic areas within SDG4 the European and North American regions have chosen to focus on this year is global citizenship education (GCED)– as a means for achieving target 4.7, specifically “promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence.”   GCED aims to  “empower learners to assume active roles to face and resolve global challenges and to become proactive contributors to a more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure world” (UNESCO).

Strategies for approaching GCED within the SDGs vary from country to country. Some, like Norway, are focusing very much on human rights education, whilst others such as Albania, have developed specific targeted points in the curriculum to develop intercultural or interfaith understanding. Meanwhile, France has developed specific citizenship education which seeks to develop a sense of belonging- recognising that when people are afraid they tend to fall back on issues of identity. We at ESU strongly lobbied for an approach to GCED that was embedded holistically throughout the educational system- both formal and informal, and not approached as a singular thread in the delivery of a specific module.

In our engagement with the topic, ESU also argued that promoting peace and active citizenship through education has to be approached with a focus on embedding students as central partners in any process that takes place. Whether that’s in ensuring students are active in democratic structures, or through taking a student centered approach to redesigning the curriculum to make it more inclusive and diverse, if a learner can see their lived experience reflected in the content they’re delivered, they’re less likely to feel alienated within their education. This student centered approach will also develop leadership and critical thinking in learners through the process- by empowering students to be part of building inclusive and tolerant schools, education can be a tool to creating more inclusive and tolerant societies, promoting peace and preventing violence.

However, what struck me during all the discussions at the conference was how ‘preventing violent extremism’ (PVE) has become a dominant focus for the region within this thematic area. The continued threat of terrorist attacks has altered the way governments perceive the role and responsibilities of education- with a renewed focus on preparing learners to be resilient to violent extremism and preventing radicalisation. We, as ESU, along with other NGOs raised our concerns during the debates that this approach misses the opportunity to present education’s role in positively developing citizenship and promoting peace- and therefore preventing violence.

Whilst GCED has historically been about promoting positive values, the shift to focus on PVE has changed the language and terminology used, and therefore the implicit and explicit meaning of the policy focus. This change in language, from the positive role of education in the promotion of citizenship development and peace (for example through human rights education) to negative and even violent language about stopping radicalisation and extremism through preventative measures will undoubtedly have implications for the way member states approach educational policy on the matter in the months to come.

Another striking observation during the meeting, was the subtle removal of education for sustainable development from the first draft of this year’s policy recommendations. After years of debate within the group about the subject, for it to suddenly disappear from the agenda was striking. I was rapporteur for the thematic discussion on GCED, a platform which I also used to raise the concerns held by ESU and other groups such as open society foundations as to the lack of inclusion of education for sustainable development. Thankfully, it was reinstated in the final recommendations document, which can be found online here. 

img_1728

Post author Beth Button (left) with Arleen Michelle, a representative from the European Federation of Intercultural Learning (EFIL)