Globalization: Impact on Production and Development of Contemporary Education Policy - Essay Example

? Globalization: Impact on Production and Development of Contemporary Education Policy By Introduction There has been increasing concerns over various aspects of globalization. Amongst the recent aspects is the effect of globalization on production and development of contemporary educational policy. The following is a discussion evaluating impact of globalization on production and development of contemporary educational policies. Stewart (2000) defines globalization as the process though which cultures of the global sphere are integrated. It is brought about by the interaction of individuals from varying societies and cultures. Investment, information technology and international trade are some of the processes which drive globalization. Through globalization, easier and greater communication between people has been made possible. Globalization affects the human physical well-being, prosperity and economic development, political systems, culture and the environment. Overview of Globalization Globalization is not a very novel term especially throughout the history of mankind. For many years, people and later corporations were buying and selling to other in lands far away, for example through the Silk Road in Central Asia that linked Europe and China in the Middle Ages. In the same way, corporations and people have invested in enterprises located in other nations for centuries (Ball, 1998). Actually, the current globalization wave has features similar to those that were present before World War one broke out in 1914. Technological and policy developments in the past decades have been very significant in increasing investment, migration and cross-border trade to the extent that observers have the belief that the world is in a totally new economic development phase (Tikly, 1999). To illustrate this, the world trade volume has increased by twenty percent since 1950 and from 1997 to 1999; foreign investment flows have nearly doubled to 827 from 468 billion dollars. Differentiating this current globalization wave, Archer (1999) has stated that the current globalization is deeper, cheaper, faster and farther. The current globalization wave has been speeded up by policies that have initiated economies both internationally and domestically. After World War 2 and more so during the previous two decades, most governments have taken up free-market economies which has increased their productive potential vastly and has created many new chances for investment and international trade (Tikly, 1999). Additionally, governments have negotiated reductions in commerce barriers and have established worldwide agreements meant for promoting investment and trade of services and goods (White, 2001). Corporations have utilized the foreign markets new opportunities to construct foreign factories and establish marketing and production arrangements with the foreign partners. Therefore, international financial and industrial business structure can be said to be a defining characteristic of globalization. The other significant catalyst of globalization is technology. Particularly, information technology advances have transformed economic life dramatically (Strange, 2002). Individual technologies have offered many types of individual economic actors (businesses, investors and consumers) new valuable tools for pursuing and identifying economic opportunities (Archer, 1999). This includes quicker and more informed economic trends analyses around the world, easy assets transfer and collaboration with other partners. It is imperative mentioning that globalization is an issue that is deeply controversial. Proponents argue that it allows poor nations to grow economically and improve their living standards (Ball, 2000). Opponents on the other hand claim that the unfettered worldwide free market that has been created has been of benefit to multinational corporations from the Western world as opposed to the common people, local cultures and local enterprises (Tikly, 1999). Resistance to globalization is thereby experienced at a governmental and popular end as governments and people try managing capital flow, goods, labor and ideas which make up the current globalization wave (Strange, 2002). To gain the correct balance between costs and benefits related to globalization, people from all countries need to comprehend how globalization works as well as the policy choices that face them and the societies they belong to. Globalization and the contemporary education policy Various outstanding groups of authors globally participate in discussing how globalization has affected the contemporary education policy around the world. Authors in this case define globalization in various ways (White, 2001). Some see it as the process through which supranational institutions emerge and whose decisions con strain as well as shape the options for the policy for the particular nations. For others, it means the awesome consequence of worldwide economic processes including production processes, capital flow, trade, consumption and monetary interdependence (Archer, 1999). The third group sees it as a rise of neoliberalism as a discourse of hegemonic policy. For the fourth category, it is the initiation of novel global cultural forms, communication technologies and media which give shape to the relations of identity, affiliation and interaction across and within local cultural settings (Ball, 1998). The last category refer to it as an apparent set of changes, basically utilized by policy makers in states to suppress opposition and inspire support for changes since greater forces leave nations no choice but to follow the global rules created (Tilak, 2007). The greater forces in this case refer to regional alliances obligations, demands from World Bank and IMF as well as global competition. Concentrating on educational practice and policy, concepts that need redefinition and rethinking include neoliberalism, local, popular culture, new social movements, multiculturalism, community, citizenship, identity, feminism, management, reform and restructuring (Tikly, 1999). These terms not only reflect changing concepts but a transformation in institutional arrangements, practices and relations. The redefinition of these terms affects the manner in which societies form educational practice and policy. Education is changing and still needs to change so as to respond effectively to the new circumstances (Ball, 2000). Globalization is viewed as an ideological discourse that drives change due to a perceived necessity and immediacy to respond to a new order in the world (Tilak, 2007). Brown and Lauder (1997) suggest that these changes can occur in more equitable, just and different ways. Educators need to be aware of the trends’ forces and see the implications they have in constraining and shaping the choices available to practices and policies in education. There have been many changes in the field of education for quite a long period of time. From the Enlightenment perspective, nothing can appear more personalized, local and intimate than the educational system whereby youths and children age in the process of learning and acquiring their national, regional and family culture (Strange, 2002). Before public education was instituted, the elite’s education was taken care of by tutors who worked with the pupils in a manner that was highly personalized. Education of talents, capacities and mind of the person was regarded as the basic principle (Tikly, 1999). A different class context is that of children from working or rural families where upbringing or education was a personal affair catered for by local communities and families (Carter & O’neil, 1995). Being a part of the community (national or local) way of life and culture is the educational imperative in these contexts. After schooling was owned up by the public, the notion of familial and local upbringing responsibility remained. Schools functioned in loco parentis and policy structures were in support community control in schooling (White, 2001). These placed the learner close to the familiar and immediate learning needs which include work roles, citizenship, affiliation and need for identity, responding to a context already realized (Archer, 1999). The same dynamic of work is evidenced in more nationalized and centralized public school systems, simply in various levels (Ball, 2000). Policies enforce identification and conformity within a national tradition, a broader citizenship context, work responsibility and larger community but one where still the affiliation conditions are based on homogeneity and proximity (Strange, 2002). Such educational process implication (as it becomes more of a public concern), is far beyond the purpose of individual self development. According Tilak (2007), the public’s education has benefits and costs. Consequently, education is not only expenditure but an investment as well. Education’s political implications surpass an individual’s condition to be educated and comprise a set of decisions that are strategic and are of consequence to the entire society (Giddens, 1990). This emphasizes the significance of education as a policy for the public, and the state’s role. Modeling an individual as a member in the larger community and as a self is a dialectical process which implies the importance of preserving civilization treasures within the socialization process of every new member of each generation (Ball, 2000). This becomes an imperative as the country is considered as the site, with borders on all sides and where the pedagogical process has governance. Organized education systems operate under the state’s aegis that certifies, finances, mandates, coordinates, regulates and controls the learning and teaching processes (Ball, 1998). It is unsurprising that the core role of an educational system is to form a competent and loyal citizen. The question challenging people is to the extent to which globalization has affected the development and production of the contemporary education policy (Cowen, 1996). The dynamics, nature and origins of globalization process are a centre of concern for educational philosophers, parents, politicians, policy makers, teachers, curriculum workers, sociologists and all who are involved in the educational endeavor (Bray & Lillis, 2003). Irrespective of the definition given to globalization, it has serious implications in changing public policies and educational practices that are basically national in character. Such reflections lead to further questions such as the most appropriate definition for globalization, the ideology being real or virtual, and various efforts that should be in place to restrict economy in respect of educational agenda in a view of reaping merits of globalization (Fritzell, 1987). Globalization is an inexorable trend that not only affects the political and economical spheres of a nation but also the culture and education systems (Edwards, 1994). Global economic restructuring patterns, which came about in late seventies were appropriate for implementation of neoliberal policies in many countries (Strange, 2002). During that period, capital management was undergoing a profit squeeze where labor had the urge for high wages while foreign competitors wanted the prices down. With the slowing of the economy, state revenues could not keep pace with the social expenditures. Taxpayers had resentment for people who were benefitting from state revenues (institutions being given state subsidies, welfare recipients and state bureaucracy) (White, 2001). Consensus was therefore broken regarding the value and viability of welfare state. The state withdrew from the responsibility of being the arbiter between capital and labor, allying with capital and pushing labor to a defensive position. The world trend of economic restructuring had diverse characteristics and implied deep budget reductions and fiscal crisis which affected the public sector (Marginson, 1999). This consequently led to decreased welfare state and more privatization of education, housing, health and social services. Worker/ state relationship has been restructured in a manner such that a social salary diminishes at individual salary’s expense (Altbach and Kelly, 1999). This has led to segmentation of the society into two sectors. One is included and protected by the state while the other is excluded and unprotected. Economic restructuring has brought about an exclusion model which leaves out huge population sectors, especially poor women in developing and developed nations. While neoliberal policies are being implemented, the state is no longer so responsible in administering public resources which promote social justice. A blind faith in markets, the thought that economic growth will assist the poor and that private charity will pick up the state program roles has replaced this (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton, 1999). Despite Right calls to reduce or dismantle state’s sizes, state reduction skeptical observers claim that the principal issue is not the size of the state or its expenditures but rather the investments and interventions (Tilak, 2007). These could either be promoting equality and welfare on one hand or subsidizing the growth of corporate either through military spending rubric or tax incentives. Neoliberal states specifically in developed societies with those in developing nations trying to emulate them, has drastic cutbacks in rampant environmental destruction, social spending, organized labor widespread attacks, loosened constraints in corporate growth and military infrastructure spending is increased. Corporations have become so powerful to the extent that they are initiating their own vocational and postsecondary education programs (Cooksey, Court & Makau, 1994). For example, fourteen Academies have been opened by Burger King in United States cities, and Apple and IBM are contemplating starting schools for profit (Usher & Edwards, 2001). Whittle Communications (a corporation owned by British Associated Newspapers and Time Warner) not only exchange TV sets and satellite dishes for advertisements to more than ten thousand schools, but is arranging to start one thousand profit making schools that will serve two million children in the next 10 years. Additionally, corporations are currently spending 40 billion dollars upwards every year, approaching total yearly expenditures of all universities, graduate and four-year colleges in America to educate and train their current employees (Rasool, 2002). In the mid-eighties for example, Howell and Bell had thirty thousand students in the postsecondary network, while ITT had twenty five postsecondary proprietary institutions. Reports claim that AT&T alone carries out more training and education functions that any university globally. Education privatization is a process that is happening in the context of novel arrangements and relations among nations, characterized by labor division globally, internationalization of states, concentrating power in supranational organizations and economic integration of the national economies (Bray, 2000). Capital mobility offers capitalists and especially financial speculators, a great leverage deal over nations, itself an industrial revolution product, and one that had been equipped adequately to deal with the postindustrial world basic demands (Carnoy, 1999). National currencies speculation and the prophecy on global credit legitimacy have led to a terrain for nations trying to straighten their economic houses. Globalization has crucial characteristics that can be classified under economic, cultural, political and educational terms. White (2001) confirms that globalization characteristics that affect education include; in economic terms. There has been a change to Post-Fordist from Fordist workplace organization forms, a growth in internationalized consumption and advertising patterns, reduced barriers for free movement of goods, investments and workers across the national borders, as well as new role pressures for consumers and workers in the society (Usher & Edwards, 2001). Politically, nation-state sovereignty and national autonomy is being eroded the notion of citizen as a unifying and unified concept is weakening. This concept is characterized by precise status, obligations, rights and roles (Bray, 2000). Culturally, there exist tension between the manner in which globalization emphasizes cultural homogeneity and standardization, while also a source of fragmentation brought about by growth of oriented movements that are local. On the contrary, a 3rd theoretical alternative brings out a more dialectical and conflicted situation where both cultural heterogeneity and cultural homogeneity appear simultaneously in the landscape of culture (Samoff, 2001). At times, this dialectical and merger tension between the local and global is referred to as glocal. Educationally, there is a rising comprehension that neoliberal globalization version and more so as implemented by international, multilateral and bilateral organizations, is prevalent in an education agenda that imposes and privileges particular policies (Altbach and Kelly, 1999). These policies include testing, instruction, curriculum, teacher training, standards, assessment, financing and evaluation. Amidst such pressures, more study is essential regarding local responses so as to guard public education against pure market mechanisms that are being introduced (Morley & Rassool, 1999). This is maimed at regulating the educational exchanges as well as policies that seek to minimize state financing and sponsorship and to impose efficiency and management models borrowed from business sectors as an educational decision making framework (White, 2001). The educational responses are manned by critical intellectuals, new social movements and teacher unions, often expressed as an opposition to education initiatives such as subsidization of parochial and private schools and vouchers. Management of educational responses by critical intellectuals, social movements, and teacher unions has consequently led to a challenge in analysis (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999). The relationship between education and state varies dramatically depending on governance modes, geographical areas, historical epochs and political representation forms, and between the varied needs of educational levels (non-formal education, continuing education, and adult, higher education, secondary and elementary). Therefore a drastic alteration of governance modes such as installing military dictatorship for some years before going back to democracy yields complex, multiple and unpredictable results on education (Mbeki, 1999). This calls for a critical historical analysis of education-state relationship. This challenge is complicated more by the issue discussed above; the eradication of autonomy in states in educational policy matters. A good example for this is the case with Latin America. After civil wars came to an end, educational systems were initiated alongside border establishment for countries. The nation-state constitution included formation of strong armies as well as the promulgation of National Constitutions linked to principles from American Revolution, French Revolution and British Magma Carta, which expresses a strong liberal underpinning (Cooksey, Court & Makau, 1994). Thereby, 3 principal state formations were present in Latin America in the last century and a half. The exceptions of this trend are the periods of revolution, military dictatorship and military intervention which disturb liberal-democratic state form (Turner, 2005). The three state forms include liberal state which promotes liberal education, developmentalist state where a consistent modernization pattern exists with the principal role carried out by educational reforms that are based on human capital model and constitution of various types of neoliberal educational policy and neoliberal state. From a historical angle, the complicated connection between the state and education poses a challenge when analyzing education-state relationship (Usher & Edwards, 2001). There is no one way in which the institutions are linked, and they will therefore not be affected by globalization conditions in a single way. Economically, the pressures resulting from austerity conditions that are imposed economically can lead to savage decreases on education expenditures. In another way, the need for more economic productivity and competitiveness is likely to lead to more education expenditures (Tilak, 2007). Politically, national contexts may systematize education around revitalized nationalism conception and citizen loyalty. Other contexts are where the idea of cosmopolitan citizenship prevails, one that encourages multicultural tolerance, foreign language study and travel. Culturally, some countries will encourage and accept more media, information technology, new communication and popular culture reliance, as a window for comprehending one’s place in the global world. In another context, these trends also lead to increased resistance, suspicion and insularism to external influences. Local and national cultural, political and economic changes are affected by globalization and they respond to it actively in a wide array of patterns. Education is a major arena where these responses and adaptations occur, and is also anticipated to be among the institutional context myriads (Altbach and Kelly, 1999). Globalization has affected contemporary educational policy through the popular current policy buzz words (decentralization, choice and privatization of educational systems) which drives policy creation in prevailing research and education agendas based on rational management and organization theories. Another aspect is the role of international and national organizations in education which includes social movements, parent organizations and teacher unions (Riddell, 1996). Finally, there is the novel scholarship on gender, class, race and the state. There are the concerns of multiculturalism and the issue of identity, diasporic communities, post colonialism, feminism, critical race theory as well as new social movements. In these debates, questions concerning the role of popular education, multicultural democratic struggle and participatory action research arise as central (Tilak, 2007). New educational models can emerge from the critical perspectives, aimed at confronting the winds of change. This includes education from a nontraditional social movement and new popular culture context, novel models of education in the rural areas for the poor people and marginalized areas, migrant education, education for women and girls and street children. Traditional cultures and societies have suppressed the educational aspirations of women (Usher & Edwards, 2001). New models of education partnerships between private and religious organizations, third sector, NGO and state, non-formal education, adult literacy, business/ university relationship, school organization and educational financing have been initiated. UNESCO and other agencies in UN have supported some reform initiatives actively. These reforms include reforms for universal education access and literacy, educational quality as a principal element of equity, education as a right, as long-life education, for eco-pedagogy, democracy, peace and tolerance. The agencies aims at making education contribute to ecological development which is sustainable (eco-economy), educational access and communication and information technologies. It is worth emphasizing that globalization influences on educational practices and policies have conflicting and multiple effects. Not all effects can be categorized as significant or not, and some are shaped by active struggles and tensions. So far, the debates that surround globalization phenomenon have been clarified, identified and characterized. Secondly, there has been an explanation on the complex and multiple globalization effects on policy formation and education policy (Altbach and Kelly, 1999). Tracing the cultural, political and economic impacts is essential in summarizing the effects globalization has on educational policy. Globalization affects employment and therefore at the level of economy, it touches a principal traditional education goal, getting ready for work. Schools therefore require reconsidering this issue as the job market is changing in the Post-Fordist work environment. New skills have been adapted and flexibility is also essential for better adoption in to the changing job demand, and the related changing of jobs, as well as dealing with an international labor pool which is increasingly competitive. It is worth noting that schools do not only prepare students as producers (Usher & Edwards, 2001). Increasingly, schools are involved in shaping consumer practices and attitudes as facilitated by corporate sponsorship of products and educational institutions, both extracurricular and curricular, which meet students daily in the classrooms. The increasing school environment commercialization has been recognized as remarkably explicit and bold in its intentions. For example, in Chris Whittle’s project, it is known that Channel One gives free televisions to schools so that children are exposed to force-fed commercial diet while in classrooms. The wider economic globalization effects force a country’ educational policies into a framework that is neoliberal and which stresses on lower taxes, reducing the state sector, advertising market approaches to the choices that schools have, performance assessment, school organizations’ rational management and deregulation which encourages new providers of the educational services, online providers included (Harber & Davies, 1997). According to Altbach and Kelly (1999), politically, state and national policy making is usually constrained by the external demands from the transnational institutions. Yet, the economic exchange and coordination is better regulated. As stronger institutions arise to control global economic activity, globalization has also brought about a growth in internationalization of environmental issues, terrorism, crime and global conflict. However, political institutions have not developed adequately to address these issues (Stewart, 2000). Educational institutions here have a significant role in solving these problems, as well as the complex network of unintended and intended human consequence which have resulted from global corporations’ growth, global expansion, global communication and global mobility (Colclough & Manor, 1991). This awareness can create a useful conception of what is needed of world citizenship education. Cultural global changes affect deeply educational institutions, practice and policies. In advanced industrial communities for example, multiculturalism gain a special meaning in the global context. How does liberal pluralism discourse (multicultural educations’ dominant framework in developed societies) extend to the global order where differences become more, common interest and interdependence more attenuated, and affiliation grounding more indirect and abstract (Boyer & Drache, 2002). As the global pressures on the local culture increase, it is the role of education to preserve them. How education assists in preparing students to cope with transnational, national, regional and local conflicts as traditions and cultures whose antagonism history can be in suspension due to overarching and strong nations breaking loose as institutions lose legitimacy and power is a critical perspective of globalization (Usher & Edwards, 2001). Education can assist support self construction which is evolving as well as identities constitution. It is on this basis that Green (1997) asks the question, how can multiculturalism, being a citizenship education, social movement and an antiracist curriculum philosophy intervene in social conflict dynamics emerging between local responses and global transformations? A key question to reflect on is whether the challenges in the current educational system which are not related to globalization process, indicate a decisive and deeply felt dilemma in both developing and developed societies (Boyer & Drache, 2002). There is also the issue of governability with increasing diversity, permeable borders, worldwide mobility explosion, technology and media which bring about entirely new conditions for shaping identification and affiliation (Hirst & Thompson, 1996). What role does education have in shaping the understanding, values and attitudes of multicultural democratic citizens who can constitute the growing cosmopolitan world? Conclusion It is undisputable that the global context presents challenges to education as compared to the Enlightment framework. Previously, education had the role of ensuring that the development and needs of individuals are met, so the individual fits in to the society which was defined by familiarity, homogeneity, relative proximity and education for life. These broaden the community outlines beyond the nation, region and family. Current potential affiliation communities are ever-changing, provisional, dislocated and multiple. Citizenship, work and family are the major identification sources in Enlightment education and they remain significant. However, these are becoming more ephemeral since competition from other affiliation sources and mobility compromises them. In the past, schools prepared learners for future challenges and opportunities which were predictable. The case is different today as schools experience changing and conflicting ad hoc expectations which are guided by unpredictable alternative development path. Education aims therefore have more to do with adaptability and flexibility, with training to cope with others in diverse public places. Bibliography Altbach, P. & Kelly, G., 1999, Colonialism and Education, Longman, London. Archer, M., 1999, Social Origins of Educational Systems, Sage Publishers, London Ball, S., 2000, Politics and Policy Making in Education (London, Routledge). Ball, S., 1998, Big policies/small world: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 119–130. Boyer, R. & Drache, D. (Eds), 2002, States against Markets, Routledge, London. Bray, M., 2000, “Partnerships in education. Paper presented to the Education for All Conference”, Dakar, April. Bray, M. & Lillis, K., 2003, Community Financing of Education, Commonwealth Secretariat, London Brown, P. & Lauder, H., 1997, Education, globalization and economic development, in: A. Halsey, H. lauder, P. brown & A. wells (Eds) Education, Culture, Economy, Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carnoy, M., 1999, Globalization and Educational Reform: what planners need to know, UNESCO, Paris Carter, D. & O’neil, M., 1995, International Perspectives on Educational Reform and Policy Implementation, Falmer, Brighton. Colclough, C. & Manor, J. (Eds), 1991, States or Markets? Neo-liberalism and the development policy debate, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Cooksey, B., court, D. & Makau, B., 1994, Education for self-reliance and Harambee, in: J. BARKAN (Ed.) Beyond Capitalism Versus Socialism in Kenya and Tanzania, Lynne Reinner, London. Cowen, R., 1996, Last past the post: comparative education, modernity and perhaps post-modernity. Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No 2, pp. 151–170. Crossley, M., 1999, Reconceptualising comparative and international education. Compare, Vol. 29, pp. 249–267. Edwards, R., 1994, From a distance? Globalization, space–time compression and distance education. Journal of Open Learning, Vol. 9, pp. 9–17. Fritzell, C., 1987, On the concept of relative autonomy in educational theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 8, pp. 23–36. Giddens, A., 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge. Green, A., 1997, Education, Globalization and the Nation State, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Harber, C & davies, L., 1997, School Management and Effectiveness in Developing Countries, Cassell, London. Held, D, mcgrew, A. Goldblatt, D. & perraton, J., 1999, Global Transformations: politics, economics, culture, Polity, Cambridge. Hirst, P. & Thompson, G., 1996, Globalization in Question: the international economy and the possibilities of governance, Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge. Kress, G., 1996, Internationalisation and globalisation: rethinking a curriculum of communication. Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 185–196. Marginson, S., 1999, After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 19–31. Mbeki, T., 1999, Speech to Launch the African Renaissance Institute, African Renaissance Institute, Pretoria. Turner (Ed.), 2005, The State and the School: an international perspective, Falmer, London, pp. 18–36. Morley, L & Rassool, N., 1999, School Effectiveness: fracturing the discourse, Falmer, London. Rasool, N., 2002, Postmodernity, cultural pluralism and the nation-state: problems of language rights, human rights, identity and power. Language Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 89–99. Riddell, A., 1996, Globalization: emasculation or opportunity for educational planning? World Development, Vol. 24, pp. 1357–1372. Samoff, J. (Ed.), 2001, Coping with Crisis: austerity, adjustment and human resources, Cassell, London. Stewart, F., 2000, Globalisation and education. International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 16, pp. 327–333. Strange, S., 2002, The Retreat of the State: the diffusion of power in the world economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tikly, L., 1999, Postcolonialism and comparative education. International Review of Education, 45, pp. 603–621. Tilak, J., 2007, The effects of adjustment on education: a review of the Asian experience. Prospects, 27, pp. 85–108. Usher, R. & Edwards, R., 2001, Postmodernism and Education: different voices, different worlds, Routledge, London. White, B.W., 2001, Talk about school: education and the colonial project in French and British West Africa. Comparative Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 9 Read More