The Influence of the Globalized Movements and Tendencies on the Education System - Literature review Example

Critical Reflection and Response Student’s name Institution Critical Reflection One The concept of globalization is mainly believed to refer to an era in which there was increased interconnectedness between states in terms of politics, economics, culture, education, information technology among others. While this is the generally accepted definition globalization as a concept is not as clearly defined particularly in terms of is it really an era or rather a speeding up of processes that have been ongoing since the beginning of human civilization. Greater controversies and conflicts of definition arise on what really encompasses globalization since not all scholars agree on what aspects are important for globalization. Lauder et al, (2008) asserts that while a lot of changes related to sociology, economics, and politics greatly influence education thus altering its nature and prospects. A good question to be asked is whether the current education systems were conceived designed and constructed for a different age thus calling for changes in education policy to make them aligned to current realities (Robinson, 2010). Education has by necessity been a part of the globalization debate since education has always been an instrument through which the state countered external military threats, fostered economic renewal and prevented revolution (Lauder et al, 2008). However since Durkeinheim articulated the role of education for the reconstruction of France the economic role of education has been the aspect that has been most emphasized. As such aspect of globalization such as interchange of culture, political systems, information technology, and trade are all undertaken in education policy making for the sake of development or renewal of state economy. On the other hand, I agree with Castell’s assertion that the education system is driven by capitalistic competition among states (2001). He argues that the new globalized economy is based on information technology with fast acting networks that are uneven and selective. This brings into mind Christie (2008) example in which learners get different educational experiences due to the selective nature of such networks. This is also relevant in an analysis of the education standards of the developed and developing countries. Developing countries have relatively lower education standards due to lack of access to the necessary networks (Christie, 2008). Lauder et al, (2008) asserts that one of the key assumptions of the globalization movement is that education is removed from the rest of society. It is believed that education’s autonomy has the capacity to transcend socioeconomics in developing students that are above narrow self interest but adhere to moral and ethical worldviews. Nothing could be further from the truth since it is quite evident that socioeconomics have a role to play education outcomes. Even as each education system has a moral goal which it tries to achieve, policy making will be influenced directly or indirectly by political, economic and social considerations which are driven by globalization network which either give advantage or disadvantage (Christie, 2008). For instance the adoption of standardized systems in Australia is driven by global economics. Advantage can only be gained through standardization and as such the adoption of NAPLAN. Since globalization is tailored to give advantage to those with access to the networks, disadvantage will continue to afflict those with no access to networks resulting in increasing inequality. References Castells, M. (2001) Identity and change in a Network Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GBB7U5mv0w  Christie, P. (2008) ‘Globalisation, the “knowledge economy” and education’. In Opening the Doors of Learning, Johannesburg: Heinemann, pp.41-71.  Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J-A., &Hasley, A.H. (2008) Introduction: The prospects for education, Individualization, education & social change. In H.Lauder, P.Brown, J-A Dillabough& A. Halsey (Eds), Education, Globalisation & Social Change (pp1-70) Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.  Robinson, K. (2010) Changing Educational Paradigms. http://www.intcul.tohoka.ac.jp/holden/MediatedSociety/Readings/2003-04/Appadarai.html Response for Module one I do believe globalization presents one of the greatest challenges which education policy makers and professionals ought to take into account. That the concept has so far not been clearly defined makes it very hard to address the impact or influence of globalization on education policy making. While divergent and controversial views on the term are any, I do believe it would be prudent for policy makers and educational theories to make use of the ones most relevant to the context. I do agree with Castell (2001) and Robinson (2010) on the need for education systems to be updated to bring them in line with emerging realities of globalization. It is quite evident that while there have been many changes in the socio-political, economic, and technology arena the education sector lags behind in adopting policy that is in line with the times. I agree with you that the education system can change in the way envisaged by Robinson (2010) and Castell (2001) though not fully. The extent of the inequalities and the opinions and attitudes pervading society as put forth by Christie (2008) make it very hard for all aspects education change as envisaged to be attained. The example given by Christie (2008) showing the extremes in socioeconomics between Thembile and Lebogang shows that it is not that easy to align globalization policies to education policy. Australia’s social inequalities are all too common to see in the light of the Gonski Report which brought to light the inequalities between our schools. It has been evident that the Australian education system has increasingly become unequal by the introduction of standardized systems which make the divide wider. It is not by accident that this has happened, since it is inevitable that the policies controlled by the middle class that have access to policy making and resources at the expense of those without access (Lauder et al, 2008). The digital age is a fundamental part of globalization which has had both negative and positive consequences. The development of information and technology has been responsible for the aspect of the digital divide in which the socioeconomically disadvantaged are held back due to lack of access while the socioeconomically advantaged who have access gain from these developments (Castell 2001). The digital age is an important in education policy making and in professional practice. I do believe that the education system has lagged behind particularly in professional practice. That teachers are inadequately prepared for the task of teaching students of the digital age is not in question. Students of the digital age have come to be in some instances more informed than their teachers making such teachers redundant and in need of courses to make them more relevant for a globalized education system (Christie, 2008). The education system is failing in producing people that are relevant to the new globalized economy. Too much flexibility in learning is creating workers who are skilled to some degree on a wide range of issues but without enough skill for specialized tasks. While I do agree with you that globalization can be a driving force for change in education, I do believe a lot has to be done in bridging the gap in socioeconomics before the effects of such globalization trickle down. References Castells, M. (2001) Identity and change in a Network Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GBB7U5mv0w  Christie, P. (2008) ‘Globalisation, the “knowledge economy” and education’. In Opening the Doors of Learning, Johannesburg: Heinemann, pp.41-71.  Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J-A., &Hasley, A.H. (2008) Introduction: The prospects for education, Individualization, education & social change. In H.Lauder, P.Brown, J-A Dillabough& A. Halsey (Eds), Education, Globalisation & Social Change (pp1-70) Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.  Robinson, K. (2010) Changing Educational Paradigms. http://www.intcul.tohoka.ac.jp/holden/MediatedSociety/Readings/2003-04/Appadarai.html Critical Reflection two An examination of the education system would not be complete without an examination of the influences of the globalized neo-liberal movements. This is especially so with regard to the Australian education policies that have been implemented during the Rudd government era. An analysis that does not take into account the globalized neo-liberal aspects underlying the current education policy would be ineffective and inconclusive. Since the election of the Rudd government in 2007, there has been a significant rise in the influence of the federal government on education policy which is constitutionally a preserve of the state governments. According to McIntyre (2012) an analysis of policy changes is influenced by the interplay of professional, political and institutional interests. I am in agreement with McIntyre’s assertion that new economic realities have forced national governments to adopt policies which are more accommodating of lifelong learning processes. I do agree with Lingard (2010) that the convergence of education policy on a global scale has to do with the human capital theory which links education to economic productivity hence the need for policy interventions in education. The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy is the embodiment of the enhanced influence of the federal government in national education policy. While I am not against standardized testing and evaluation, I believe that this system has resulted in education policy becoming a high stakes game rather than being education for its own sake (McIntyre, 2013). It is inevitable that such an approach to the making of educational policy will result in greater disadvantage for schools with low socio-economic status. Even as the Rudd government has adopted measures intended to deal with the global financial crisis and an even greater need for human capital, the imposition of industry based competency standards has a negative effect on lifelong learning (McIntyre, 2013). It is quite evident that NAPLAN framework is geared at enhancing productivity through promotion of industry specific education at the expense of lifelong learning. Another aspect I believe is important in globalized neo-liberal policy making in education is the aspect of policy borrowing. The world over nations such as the United States, the UK have put in place educational policies which focus on accountability. I am in agreement with Lingard’s asserting that new accountabilities and policies such as those adopted by Australia in the NAPLAN framework have some negative impacts which are clearly evident in their parent nations of the US and the UK (Lingard, 2010). It would seem that the Australian government has not taken into account other elements underlying national education policy. I do believe that in a neo-liberalized world there is need to borrow and learn from policies of other educational systems. However this policy borrowing needs to be one that enriches the education system (Lingard, 2010). It is my opinion that context plays an important role what is right or wrong for the Australian education system. I do believe that a less standardized system such as the high performing Finland education system which are devoid of high stakes aspects and promote professional autonomy are better suited to the Australian context. Bibliography Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling, Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), pp 129-147. McIntyre, J. (2012). Lifelong learning as policy process: A case study from Australia. In Aspin, D.N.,Chapman, J., Evans, K. and Bagnall, R. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Springer: Dordrecht. McIntyre, J (2013). The Globalisation of Educational Policy. February 21. [lecture] Canberra: University of Canberra. Response for Module 2 I do believe that a critique of the national education policy without taking into account the influence of global neo-liberalism would make such analysis ineffective. The policies that have been adopted by the Rudd government since election in 2007 point to increasing influence of neoliberal policies in our education policy making. As such I believe a critique of education policy would include an analysis of the relationship between the two as a fundamental aspect. I am in agreement with you that the Rudd government has made policies which focus on program evaluation in line with global neo-liberalist approaches (McIntyre, 2013). I do believe the coming to the fore of national standardized tests such as the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), and other accountabilities is as a result of economic realities which call for the application of the human capital theory in education. I do find that the replacement of the ethic of trust with the ethic of performativity denigrates the education system by segregating schools (McIntyre, 2013). I am in total agreement with Lingard (2010) who makes the assertion that the standardized system is likely to lead to greater segregation and disadvantage of SES schools which will make them unattractive not only for teachers but also parents. I do believe that ethical issues are an important aspect of any education system and I do believe that this has not been taken into account in the standardization of the Australian education system (McIntyre, 2013). I do believe the transition to the NAPLAN framework has resulted in less emphasis on lifelong learning which consequently results in learners who have narrow perspectives. While the NAPLAN framework has been aimed at tackling issues of relevance it seems to make Australian learners less suited for global requirements. I join you in agreeing with you on why Australia does not need to be borrowing policy from the standardized education policies of the UK and the US as opposed to non standardization techniques in countries such as Finland which have proven more effective. While I do agree with McIntyre (2013) on the effect of reduced trade barriers and neoliberal influences from abroad on Australian education policy, I find it queer that policy makers in Australia have blindly borrowed policy without taking into consideration Australian contexts. It is the very attempts to make the education system neoliberal and globalized that are making the products of the education system unable to fit in the global stage (Lingard, 2010). I do believe the current system has been greatly influenced by the need to tailor education to fit industrial competency to such an extent that it has ignored lifelong learning (McIntyre, 2012). The importation of skilled workers is merely a reflection of the myopic nature of our education system which prepares learners for specific industry competencies. Such learners are unable to be adaptable to changing standards necessitating importation of workers who are more adaptable. I do believe the adoption of neo-liberal policies of education is making our systems weak through restricting education perspectives. I do agree with you on the need to analyze the system and how it is influenced by neo-liberalism and globalization.  References Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling, Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), pp 129-147. McIntyre, J. (2012). Lifelong learning as policy process: A case study from Australia. In Aspin, D.N.,Chapman, J., Evans, K. and Bagnall, R. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Springer: Dordrecht. McIntyre, J (2013). The Globalisation of Educational Policy. February 21. [lecture] Canberra: University of Canberra. Read More