Keywords

Introduction

In today’s educational intelligent economy (Salajan & Jules, 2020), countries often look to each other and institutions for policy ideas. However, the integration of policy and knowledge has become complex as “knowledge diffusion fuels policy transfer” (Stone et al., 2020, p. 1). The transfer of education models between international communities, which has become a common feature of the global educational architecture and is viewed as either “explicit borrowing and lending” of policies or the “more indirect mechanisms of transmitting and receiving” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 510) educational practices, in turn, generates new policy discourse. With the move from government and governance and the intensification of market fundamentalism in education, we have seen a drastic shift in the policies and routines of education, as well as the emergence of extranational forces, most notably the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) in education. Such pressures have led to the development of educational governance by numbers and what can be called “governance by best practices” based upon the transfer of so-called successful educational models centered on testing in different educational contexts. The most blatant example of this type of transfer of educational policy and practices are models from high performing countries such as the illusive “Finnish miracle of PISA” (Silova et al., 2020). While education transfer is not new but a product of colonialism (be it a forceful transfer), the transfer of perceived successful policies to stimulate and engender development is rising today. Nevertheless, the push toward the transfer of perceived best practices is a “recognition that modern education and education policy are inevitably entangled with the world beyond one’s own national borders” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 2). As such, educational governance today is dominated by a variety of educational brokers (Jules & Stockdale Jefferson, 2016), ranging from philanthropic foundations (e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations) to trans-regional regimes (e.g., the Caribbean Community [CARICOM] and the European Union [EU]), multilateral organizations and intergovernmental organizations (UNESCO and the OECD), and international finance corporations (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund [IMF]). But of all of the entities entangled in educational governance, the OECD and its PISA initiative are what most invoke cross-country comparison and pose the most significant threat to educational reform. In focusing on indicators and benchmarks through PISA, the OECD has sought to construct strategic activities, and priorities for its member states by “act[ing] to make global society more legible in order to facilitate future exercises of global governance” by “replacing idiosyncratic and particularistic local arrangements with a uniform bureaucratic grid, at first nationally, but now increasingly on a global scale” (Sharman, 2012, p. 18).

Until recently, the routine had been for international organizations and aid donors to insist on adopting Northern models in Southern countries. In looking at the transfer of best practices related to PISA in Trinidad and Tobago and moving away from the global/local dichotomy, we set out to objectively deal with the occurrence of transfer, the differing stages of transfer, the actors involved, and the broader social forces at play (Phillips, 2006). In this way, we account for the regional or supranational level’s role in facilitating educational transferal from the institutional to the national level. Here we do not seek to make claims about real and imagined in the process of educational transfer and the subsequent translation and reception of global discourses or whether or not they represent authentic borrowing. Instead, we seek to show how global discourses in the form of best practices are transferred from the global to the national level and the supranational level’s role in this process. In short, we look at the three dimensionality (national, supernational, and international) of educational transfer. Thus, we argue that commonalities are found in the transfer of educational models, as the transfer literature allows us to observe what has been successfully adapted in the educational models and what has failed. At the macro-level, we use the case study of regionalism in a small state, Trinidad and Tobago, to suggest how educational models are transferred, illustrating that they are instituted both vertically (imposition) and horizontally (cooperative transfer) to achieve the same goals. In this case, educational transfer is bidirectional in that it seeks to create the neoliberal Caribbean citizen (Jules & Arnold, 2021) who can function simultaneously in the regional market or the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) and the Global South, all based on twenty-first-century skills, including communication, critical thinking, expressing creativity, and problem-solving.

This paper relies on a discourse analysis of Trinidad and Tobago’s educational policies as we seek to explore the tensions and contradictions of education transfer at different levels. The following four sections provide an overview of Trinidad and Tobago’s educational system. We then discuss the literature on educational transfer and examine how the transfer of international and regional models affects national experiences. This chapter demonstrates how the educational models transferred between states within regions may be better served at the meso-level rather than global education models based on broad standards. We conclude by suggesting that little context often remains as educational models filter down into implementation and reveal the implication for the transfer literature.

Overview of Trinidad and Tobago’s Education System

The small, multi-ethnic, dual-island Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, situated in the southern Caribbean, gained its independence in 1962, yet its educational system has retained much of the colonial structure. However, Trinidad and Tobago differ from other anglophone Caribbean nations in that they comprise a diverse community, principally that of Afro-Trinidadians and Indian-Trinidadians and numerous minority groups with substantial economic and social capital (Sriskandarajah, 2005). As small island states, Trinidad and Tobago are members of the economic bloc and the Single Market Economy of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and have signed on to CARICOM’s Free Movement of Skilled Persons Act. This Act allows for specified categories of Caribbean nationals—college grads, artisans, musicians, and media personnel—to travel within CARICOM without specific work permits. Today, these categories also include teachers, domestic workers, and nurses who hold a Caribbean Vocational Qualification (CVQ) or its equivalent and those with associate degrees or their equivalent. However, across CARICOM’s 15 member states, Trinidad and Tobago is one of two CARICOM countries (the other being Jamacia, which is scheduled to participate in 2022) that take part in the OECD’s PISA, which measures the ability of 15 year olds to apply reading, math, and science to problem-solving. Given that Trinidad and Tobago are members of both CARICOM and the OECD’s testing regime, it provides an ideal example to showcase the transfer of regional and international models.

First and foremost, Trinidad and Tobago’s educational system is a product of colonialist elitism, which has created a dual educational system. During colonialism, Trinidad and Tobago’s education under the Education Ordinance of 1870 consisted of primary (ISCED Level 1) and secondary schools (ISCED Levels 2–3). Under this system, the dual educational system emerged as governments began to provide some forms of education; religious bodies have also provided a separate and differentiated type of education in the form of the traditional colonial grammar-type schools (Gordon, 1962; Lewis & Lewis, 1985; Williams, 2013). With the rise of independence and the push toward mass education, this dual system remained in place, and government schools were “overpopulated, understaffed, poorly resourced…associated with low achievement, indiscipline, and a consequent high failure rate” (London, 1994, p. 412).

In Trinidad and Tobago, education is free and mandatory for children aged 5–15. Trinidad and Tobago started its education with Early Childhood Education, which also offers pre-school starting at age 3 (Ministry of Education [MoEduTT], 2017). The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Division operates 138 Early Childhood centers around the country and offers a “curriculum strand of wellbeing, effective communication, citizenship, intellectual empowerment and aesthetic expression” (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 59). Primary school comprises of seven grades, and students begin primary school at age 5 and proceed up until Standard 5 (ISCED Level 1), when they start to prepare for the Secondary Entrance Assessment ([SEA], formerly called the Common Entrance Examination) (MoEduTT, 2017). The primary curriculum was recentered in 2017 to focus on benchmarking approaches such as “continuous assessment which assesses student-learning using a wide range of classroom assessments to feedback and improve student performance” and “a focus on Values, Character and Citizenship to build a strong, tolerant and conscientious citizenry” while the SEA’s primary purpose is to facilitate placement at the secondary level (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 66). The official age for secondary school is 12–16, with the option of another two years of advanced post-secondary schooling (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 79). Students with a stronger academic background who pass the SEA will attend grammar-type secondary schools, also called prestige secondary schools. In contrast, other students who do not fare well on the SEA attend traditional government schools such as Junior Secondary Schools, which serve as a bridge between primary and secondary school (they had initially been three-year institutions but are now five-year institutions) and the traditional five-year secondary schools. At the end of secondary school, students will sit for the Caribbean Examinations Council’s (CXC) Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examination, which prepares them for Lower and Upper Sixth Form (ISCED Level 4), the world of work, or entry into university.Footnote 1 Students going into Lower and Upper Sixth Form, however, will take the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE), which provides certification, academic, vocational, and technical achievements, as well as diplomasFootnote 2 and associate degrees.Footnote 3

University education is offered free of charge to undergrads at the University of the West Indies (St. Augustine Campus), the University of Trinidad and Tobago, and the University of the Southern Caribbean. Additionally, master’s programs may qualify for government subsidies. Finally, aside from private universities and depending on the results from their CXC tests, students can enter Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), which includes “those aspects of the educational process involving, in addition to general education, the study of technologies and related sciences and the acquisition of practical skills, attitudes, understanding and knowledge relating to occupation in various sectors of economic life” (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 91). Though the focus is on vocational skills, the Ministry also has the goal of creating translatable skills; to accomplish this, the MoEduTT (2017) pledged to “standardise all programmes and courses by levels offered by all providers” and “link all course titles to occupational areas defined” (p. 102). Given Trinidad and Tobago’s links with CARICOM, TVET is done by the National Training Agency (NTA), linked to the Regional Competency-Based Model and the eight Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) standards/levels.

Reframing Educational Transfer

Educational transfer, which involves the interaction between social structures and agency, can serve as both an independent variable by focusing on the stages, context, causes, agents, processes, mechanisms, rationales, and consequences of education borrowing as well as a dependent variable by explaining decision-making and educational change. Thus, international educational policy transfer, which refutes the functionalist ideals of seeking quick fixes to policy problems, often occurs through a wide range of filters across different geopolitical contests, from the transnational and international to the regional, national, or local communities. Educational transfer recognizes the diffusion of generic global educational models based on macro-determinism and leads to standardization and isomorphism while at the same time acknowledging the “intricate dialectics of adoption, transformation, hybridization or rejection that result in an unexpected complexity of outcomes such as ‘missed universalisation’ and ‘creative deviation’” (as cited in Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 510). Education models are further transferred through school districts’ local apparatuses and funding models. Policyscapes (i.e., the infrastructure created by policy implementations) reconstruct educational models based on actors’ (both state and non-state) reform and resistance efforts.

The rise of globalization and the knowledge-based economy has highlighted the ways in which educational knowledge is transferred and impacts policy changes. Educational transfer has many forms ranging from policy borrowing and lending to lesson-drawing, diffusion, and imposition. Educational policy transfer symbolizes the “movement of ideas, structures and practices in education policy, from one time and place to another” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 510). While the object typically analyzed as an observational and explanatory category in the transfer process is the nation-state, comparative and international education often describes the forces, processes, and agents involved through educational borrowing and lending (Phillips, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). The preconditions for borrowing include “creeping internal dissatisfaction (on the part of parents, teachers, students, inspectors); systemic collapse (inadequacy of some aspect of educational provision); negative external evaluation…economic change/competition; new world, regional or local configurations…innovation in knowledge and skills; and political change” (Phillips & Ochs, 2003, p. 452). Educational borrowing and lending, “a deliberate and unidirectional process” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 510), often focus on a narrower set of partners and mechanisms, while educational transfer happens through a diverse route of instruments such as lesson-drawing, imposition, or diffusion (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; Rose, 1991). In other words, educational borrowing and lending is much more narrowly focused than educational transfer and can be said to be a process of educational transfer. Educational transfer includes some “indirect mechanisms of transmitting and receiving” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 510). In this way, educational transfer is said to capture the multifaceted array of processes and interactions, including: explicit and implied policy borrowing and lending; the ideational, concealed, and unspoken propagation of discourse, ideas, and concepts (soft transfer); and the imposition of tangible models, structures, or practices (hard transfer; Evans & Davies, 1999). Lesson-drawing (sometimes viewed as educational borrowing and lending) is another form of transfer and is informed by the four stages of the policy borrowing-and-lending cycle (i.e., “cross-national attraction, decision, implementation, and internalization and indigenization” [Phillips & Ochs, 2003, pp. 451–452]) and begins with an intentional effort by a borrower to initiate educational transfer. Such an impetus can lead to a range of options from blind transfer to different tiers of informed transfer. Similarly, policy diffusion “precedes deliberate lesson drawing and typically leads to incremental forms of educational transfer, such as routine adjustments and fine-tuning” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 519). Regardless of the context, educational transfer is based on policy diffusion and entails unspoken, unintentional, and involuntary transfer when adopting technical procedures. Imposition is another fundamental principle of educational transfer and occurs in situations where an external body imposes the transfer while the recipient is not even allowed to bless the transfer symbolically. Imposition often leads to less successful transfer and is accompanied by “apolitical, technical and neutral terms such as ‘diffusion,’ ‘knowledge sharing,’ ‘best practice,’ and ‘benchmarking’” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 519). However, some scholars, such as Dale (2005), have used a broader model of borrowing, learning, dissemination, harmonization, standardization, and imposition to capture the variability and complexity of educational transfer.

While educational borrowing and lending focus on the micro-level, with the national state’s aid and an analytical gaze on the economic, political, social, and social aspects of educational change, educational transfer places attention on the macro-level to reveal trends and forces and mechanisms. On the one hand, micro-level analysis of educational transfer illuminates the reception of educational transfer from exogenous sources by providing in-depth details about the procedure and magnitude of the transfer; however, it can get caught up in “methodological nationalism” (Dale, 2005) as it begins its analysis of the nation-state. Meanwhile, a macro-level analysis sheds light on the broader forces that impact educational transfer and can reveal a range of policy transfers and variations. This implies that policy transfer can be imposed (such as under an authoritarian regime), may be required under duress (such as in defeated/occupied countries), be negotiated under restrictions (as in obligatory bilateral and multilateral treaties), or be intentionally borrowed (international policy borrowing), or voluntarily (Evans & Davies, 1999; Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Both the micro-level and macro-level perspectives have merits, and “a macro level of analysis is appropriate for revealing the general trends and tendencies of discursive patterns, ideologies, and structural changes, while a micro-level analysis can elucidate the processes of implementation and adaptation” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 512).

Several actors (ranging from policymakers, bureaucrats, and politicians to epistemic communities, individuals, organizations, and networks) are often included in educational transfer processes. However, these actors are often “facilitators of the exchange processes” (Perry & Tor, 2008, p. 516) because the transfer occurs in stages, and no guarantee of advancement exists from one stage to another. Thus, transfer falls upon a continuum ranging from cohesive to voluntary. Moreover, not all transfer brings about policy changes or modifications. In this way, Perry and Tor (2008) argue that socially aligned educational transfer happens similarly to “autopoietic (self-steering) mechanisms wherein global educational discourse (irritants from the environment) is studied as a self-description and copied into the internal communication patterns of an educational system and its related organizations” (Luhmann & Behnke, 1994, p. 517). As such, education policy learning ranges from lesson-drawing (rational learning) to imposition (bounded learning) and the diffusion of unintentional models, which may result in a successful or unsuccessful transfer.

The challenge with the conventional transfer/diffusion literature to date is that much of it has focused on OECD-type countries and Western forms of knowledge transfer or North–South transfer; it neglects other aspects of transfer such as South–South knowledge exchange. The literature also often implies the parties to be equal, the schemes being transferred to share similar characteristics, nongovernmental actors to have access to formalized decision-making processes, the directionality of transfer to be twofold in that it circulates first among global northern states, and the best practices to be transferred to the global south (Stone et al., 2020). In fact, Stone et al. (2020) caution that:

The ‘soft’ transfer of ideas and policy knowledge is relatively straightforward, but the constant re-circulation of ideas through many contexts makes it a more difficult endeavour first to map such ideas and how they structure thinking and reform policy agendas of governments, and then secondly, whether the same recommendations become institutionalised and implemented. (p. 5)

In this way, policy transfer is guided by distinctive ecosystems of densely networked actors who possess codified knowledge and tinker, adjust, hybridize, and customize the mechanisms through which transfer occurs.

In focusing on the impact of the darker side of modernity, some scholars have begun to reposition the educational transfer literature by advocating for a pluriversal approach or new worldview and onto-epistemic range of possibility that recognizes a “more diverse world-historical map” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 7) or “kosmos” (Cowen, 1996). Such an approach is based upon Mignolo’s (2011) five co-existing but competing projects: (1) rewesternization, which calls for a movement away from the orthodoxy of neoliberal market fundamentalism and removal of subjectivity from consumerism and individualism toward “communal and pluriversal futures” (p. 36), (2) global reorientation to the left, which argues on the one hand for a movement away from the pure Western hegemony of capitalist logic and the restructuring of existing institutions to create more materialistic equality, while on the other hand asking us to consider the impact of Western theories and institutions upon “socioeconomic organization and education” (p. 41), (3) de-Westernization, which seeks a break from the ways in which Western epistemology is projected while at the same time functioning within the orthodoxy of Western powers and epistemologies, (4) decoloniality, which moves away from the colonial knowledge imparted as a consequence of colonialism and “delinks” from the epistemic universality of Western economic forms and political authority, and (5) spirituality, which seeks to decolonize at a deeper level with the aid of knowledge, subjectivity, and religion to liberate oneself. Collectively, Silova et al. (2020) argue Mignolo’s (2011) five overlapping trajectories to provide multiple agendums for educational transfer. First, such an agenda begins with the knowledge that “rewesternization efforts in education have translated into the global policies that promote the idea of ‘knowledge for development,’ or, more specifically, knowledge for economic development and growth” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 10). Here, the effect of rewesternization connotes a sense of urgency based on neoliberalist markets’ postulating and its role in determining educational agendas, policies, and priorities. In such a case, educational transfer is based upon the ideas and ideologies of being part of the club or catching up with Western modernity. Second, global reorientation to the left focuses on a non-capitalist future and how to develop “educational policies and practices that can help to create more peaceful, just and democratic futures” (Griffith & Arnove, 2015, p. 90). In the context of educational transfer, such an objective would commence through the transformation of a “language of critique” into a “language of possibility” (Giroux, 1997, p. 108) and would focus on alternatives to the disproportionate power dynamics intrinsic in the North–South education transfer. Here, a focus would be on “South-South cooperation, [South-South transfer] and grassroots mobilization as possible ways to build more symmetrical relationships between the lenders and borrowers of education policies and practices” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 12). Third, a de-Westernization approach to educational transfer involves confronting the Western epistemology by looking for alternatives that break with notions of capitalism and modern statehood. Fourth, the decolonial option to educational transfer symbolizes an epistemic and ontological divestment from colonial powers and begins with a “distinct break with modernity associated with any forms of capitalism, socialism, or other abstract universalisms” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 15) by changing “the terms and not just the content of the conversation” (Mignolo, 2007, p. 459). Educational transfer, therefore, focuses on analytical frameworks that push beyond Western-centric history research and enable scholars to imagine alternative or “pluriversial” (Mignolo, 2007) historical experiences based on Southern epistemologies (Santos, 2014). Finally, the spiritual option to educational transfer, the least developed of all five trajectories, moves it beyond the material and toward the ontological by showing how non-Western policies and projects have been transferred without being referenced or have been exoticized or fetishized. In short, this group of research suggests that the next phase of educational transfer should involve moving toward a pluriversality that recognizes that transfer occurs outside of the dominant dichotomy of the North–South paradigm and that all actors are not passive recipients in the process. Such a process begins with the questioning that the “material, epistemic and ontological fabric that ‘we’ have created—and that in turn has created a part of ‘us’—necessarily means to question ourselves. Who are ‘we’ supposed to be after all, if we ‘transform’?” (Schultz, 2017, p. 137).

OECD as an Actor and Its PISA Transfer Mechanism

Though sometimes criticized for its narrow definition of skills being assessed, PISA is a global powerhouse of educational governance and the ideal best practice for transferring. First administered in 2000 to measure the competencies of 15 year olds in math, reading, and science, the OECD’s PISA has seen an increase in participating countries, which (including the 35 OECD members) numbered 78 in 2018. PISA results are reported tri-annually in December after the test has been administered. OECD has evolved to become a specific player in the global education arena, as “currently, the OECD is an important site for institutional networks that have evolved into a ‘global political superstructure’” (Sorensen et al., 2021, p. 101), and “as all IGOs [Intergovernmental Organizations], the OECD has overlapping and conflicting institutional, legal, social and political responsibilities” (Centeno, 2021, p. 109). OECD and PISA have built up some of these responsibilities by helping dictate goals through benchmarking. Riley and Torrance (2003) argue that PISA and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) “help to create and reinforce a climate that views education as narrow skill preparation for future employment, rather than as a challenging engagement with the knowledge and understanding that constitutes our culture and the democratic processes which future citizens must control” (p. 420). This often leaves people wondering: “scores go up, while interest in science declines – are our schools doing a good job or not? The answer is that they’re doing what they’re told to do – by government” (Riley & Torrance, 2003, p. 424). As a result, PISA can often narrow our understanding of education systems rather than expand it.

The OECD’s state-like functions at the transnational scale have emerged as a frame for aligning comparative knowledge economies’ identities (Robertson & Sorensen, 2018). In short, the OECD in the post-War period has carved out a unique niche for itself in educational governance in the form of “coining influential yet rather vague concepts such as ‘knowledge-based economy’ and solidifying those concepts with empirical data, the steady publishing of reports, and a range of programme activities and policy reviews in education” (Sorensen et al., 2021, p. 101). Thus, the OECD exercises “infrastructural governance” and “epistemological governance” (Sellar & Lingard, 2013) through its collection and comparison of statistical data by acting as a “global political superstructure” (Ougaard, 2010) through the use of soft governance, multilateral surveillance, and projection and references. Through these characteristics, the OECD seeks to shape its member states’ geometries and trajectories and those who subscribe to its brand of expertise and authority on educational matters. The OECD’s role as an actor involved in development, progress, growth, and modernization is fundamental to its legitimacy as a global governor in education, making it easy for counties to adopt its proposed best practices. Policyscapes are also how “the OECD has secured its actorness by strengthening its bureaucratic characteristics” (Centeno, 2021, p. 110). Given these characteristics, we argue that OECD can thus be an agent, facilitator, and purveyor of educational transfer through its soft modes of governance by engendering a culture of competitiveness based on markets, standardization, and accountability.

Today, PISA and other global knowledge measurements have emerged as a neoliberal mechanism linked to what Mignolo (2012) called “rewesternization” wherein the agenda gains legitimacy based on claims of increased knowledge within the parameters of twenty-first-century skills, which in turn will engender higher gross domestic product (GDP) in countries that partake in its assessments. Thus, governments invest in PISA as it has been built as the engine that promotes a deep link between education and economic growth. This premise is the basis upon which PISA is viewed as “a guide to the ‘correct’ reading of the datasets, collating information on participating societies to provide a source for identifying ‘best practices’ and initiating transfer” (Silova et al., 2020, p. 10) as PISA data is translated into best practices. What is often missed about what is transferred is the fact that the so-called best practices are global neoliberal reforms that place knowledge at the center of the “competition state” (Cerny, 1997; Jessop, 2002). In this way, PISA “increase[s] marketization” (Cerny, 1997) by seeking to trim gradually, rearrange, hollow out and/or “refunctionalize” (Jessop, 2002) the state to serve a new purpose: to make society fit for competition. The desire to be receptive to PISA transfer is built around its proposed scientific legitimation and the view that it can casually replicate academic settings. In short, PISA has developed a cult-following that suggests a causative correlation exists between student test scores and economic growth. Centeno (2021) highlighted OECD to be notable for “its institutional profile and horizontal approach to policy issues … the OECD was never meant to issue binding decisions and always had a direction-setting nature based on solid values, agenda setting, and surveillance mechanisms” (p. 111). In a world built on competition, OECD has emerged as a player rather than a direct governmental entity, but a player that can influence change both horizontally and vertically.

With PISA, power can be determined by discourse because “if we assume that education has become a global policy field, we could expect politicians in national parliaments – ministers and members of parliament – to justify or criticise draft laws on education policy by increasing reference to the international community” (Rautalin et al., 2019, p. 509). By looking at such references, Rautalin et al. (2019) found that since PISA’s creation, policymakers’ references to the international context had increased, though not significantly, and could potentially be explained by other factors such as the globalized economy or increased migration. Overall, Rautalin et al. (2019) found that “the discourse in education policy has become increasingly global and that international organisations such as the OECD appear to have a growing authoritative role in that sector. That is, they serve as respected actors or ‘nodes’ in the transnational network of actors” (p. 515), signaling PISA and OECD as actors rather than arenas.

Regionalism or Internationalization: Tracing Educational Transfer in the Caribbean

With the opening up of new policy venues such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), educational transfer in the Caribbean, be it voluntary or imposed, is about the transferal of global best practices and about representing the transnational movement of policies and social learning. In fact, Trinidad and Tobago is caught at the crossroads of globalization and economic regionalism. On the one hand, Trinidad and Tobago as an Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member, wants to be seen as one of CARICOM’s most developed countries with its glitzy infrastructure and lack of reliance on tourism, and deep investment in human capital. On the other hand, as small island developing states, its economic capacity is fluid. It is at the intersection of the development of the ideal Trinidadian and Tobagonian citizenry (based upon the concept of the Ideal Caribbean Person [CARICOM, 1997]) and the neoliberal knowledge economy that attaches “increasing importance to the ‘global war’ for talent” (Brissett, 2019, p. 687) in which Trinidad and Tobago’s education system finds itself. This Vision of the Ideal Caribbean Person (CARICOM, 1997), which is linked to the regional Human Development Strategy (CARICOM, 2017), stresses that education should develop citizens for the regional marketplace who have a respect for human life; who are secure psychologically; who value gender, ethnic, and religious diversity; who are environmentally conscious; who are community and family oriented; who value strong work ethics; who are financially literate; who respect cultural heritage; who display multiple educational literacies and apply them to science and technology (CARICOM, 1997). The Ideal Caribbean Person (CARICOM, 1997) was developed in response to the “fundamental global changes which had overtaken the community in spite of the gains in national building of reform” and focused on the “development of physical and financial capital … [and the] development of human capital” (Strachan, 1996, p. 7). In this way, mature regionalism as a regional governance mechanism in education has emerged as a way to:

…promote human and social development through, inter-alia, appropriate education and training in order to improve the overall well-being of the people of the Community and to establish the conditions for the creation of a knowledge-based society capable of competing effectively in the new global environment. (CARICOM, 2003, p. 3, emphasis in original)

In this sense, Trinidad and Tobago is no stranger to the “cooperative transfer” (Jules, 2015) of educational policies and priorities. Jules (2015) argued that the patterns, dynamics, and mechanisms of “cooperative educational transfer [of ideas and policy knowledge] stems from the ‘reciprocal movement, or transfer’ of educational ideas from the national level to the regional level and then back to the national level” (p. 3). While educational transfer in the Caribbean cooperative is voluntary and has the single unitary aim of deepening economic integration in the form of mature regionalism “in which critical policy decisions of the Community taken by Heads of Government, or by other Organs of the [CARICOM] Community, will have the force of law throughout the Region” (CARICOM, 2003, p. 1), it is driven by South–South cooperation. An illustrative example of cooperative educational transfer can be found in the regional Human Resource Development Strategy (CARICOM, 2017), which identifies “early childhood development (ages 0–8)” for CARICOM regions to be delivered at “early childhood education centres (ages 0–4) and includes primary education up to age 8” (p. 59). That same year, MoEduTT (2017) adjusted its definition of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) as “not only a preparatory stage for transitioning to formal schooling but it also focuses on the development of the whole child” and occurring in separate facilities for the ages of “three to four plus year-old children” (pp. 57–58). However, cooperative transfer can also have a phony appeal in that it “will have instant appeal to the electorate, but for which there is no likelihood of introduction into the ‘home’ system” (Phillips & Ochs, 2003, p. 455). Given that HRD is the bedrock upon which CARICOM seeks to build its deeper integrative process (mature regionalism), Trinidad and Tobago must carefully navigate the fuzzy areas of being an active player in engendering regional economic development through the CSME and the Movement of Skills Act to which it is a party while projecting an image of cultivating talent for the global marketplace based on twenty-first-century skills. At this juncture, cooperation through CARICOM and imposition in the form of OECD policies find a home. Thus, the circulation of policy through cooperative educational transfer is based upon the validity and legitimacy of local knowledge; it is an instrument of economic regionalism (the political project) aimed at diffusing regionalization (the economic process).

According to Phillips and Ochs (2003), the “preconditions for borrowing” a policy such as PISA include “creeping internal dissatisfaction (on the part of parents, teachers, students, inspectors); systemic collapse (inadequacy of some aspect of educational provision); negative external evaluation … economic change/competition; new world, regional or local configurations … innovation in knowledge and skills; and political change” (p. 452). In this case, the creation of CARICOM represented a regional configuration in response to economic change geared toward competition. Rappleye (2006) claimed that globalization “naturally creates a more complex and subtle environment for cross-national attraction and transfer” (p. 227), and thus regionalism emerges as a subtle outgrowth of that global borrowing. Rappleye (2006) contended that “one way in which attraction becomes ‘borrowing’ is when a combination of unlikely allies both use the foreign example to push reform” (p. 233). As an example of this occurring in CARICOM, we can observe the compulsory education project known as bonding. This is a direct response to OECD policies due to “the increasing demand for their [countries’] educated citizens by OECD countries” economies (Brissett, 2019, p. 699).

The international transfer of education models is often a top-down process, as is the case within Trinidad and Tobago. In the case of PISA, we argue the transferal to be based upon rewesternization. Trinidad and Tobago would take the PISA test in 2009 and 2015. In 2015, Trinidad was ranked below the OECD average in “beliefs about the nature and origin of scientific knowledge” (OECD, 2015, p. 7). In 2015, about 34% of Trinidad’s students had repeated a grade, a 2-point increase from 2009 (OECD, 2015, p. 14). Likely in response to data such as this, MoEduTT (2017) promised to “develop and implement a Quality Assurance Framework for measuring, monitoring and evaluating quality at the ECCE level which takes the [OECD report on Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care] into consideration” (p. 62). Using this report as a guide, MoEduTT (2017) committed to a framework that improves goals such as “designing and implementing curriculum and standards” and “engaging families and communities” (p. 62). Rappleye (2006) noted that during the cross-national attraction stage, “reform actors make their case for change by drawing evidence from structural impulses” (p. 230). While discussing PISA and exalting Trinidad’s 2009 results, MoEduTT (2017) also promised that “in order to steadfastly and purposefully transform our education system, the adoption and adherence to international best practice is recommended as our nation strives for sustainable development” (p. 85). Delisle, Seecharan, and Ayodike (2010) pointed out the importance of top-down policy infrastructure change in Trinidad as “vertical seamlessness focuses on the transition points in the education system and on the presence of systems that provide opportunities recovery” (p. 5). In 2017, Trinidad committed to “ensure that research, education and training respond to various and changing societal and environmental issues such as sustainable development, climate change, and social cohesion” (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 107). Later, consternation occurred among the public that Trinidad was sitting out the 2018 PISA test (Lewis, 2020). PISA provided a rallying point for many Caribbean countries, especially those that excelled, but this instant appeal may have been premature: “Trinidad and Tobago’s media actively responded to the country’s improved PISA 2015 results, recognizing the country’s comparatively high ranking in the region… [however] this is misleading in that only two Caribbean countries participated in the 2015 PISA examinations” (PREAL blog, 2017).

Lewis (2020) argued Trinidad to be well-geared toward a test such as PISA, as “our country is quite familiar with the idea of international contests, and we set great store in them” (para. 1) and that participation reflected Trinidad’s commitment to its people: “one important difference between international academic tests such as PISA, and the summer Olympics, is that it is countries not individuals that appear on the podium … PISA compels countries to pay attention to whether children are being left behind” (para. 3). Phillips and Ochs (2003) also argued that, as a policy moves into the stage of the decision within a country, “a wide variety of measures through which government and other agencies attempt to start the process of change” (p. 453). The process begins with discourse. Rappleye (2006, p. 233) noted that “policy discourse is ways of talking about, conceptualizing, and framing education that can be transferred regardless of accompanying policies.” This can be seen in Trinidad with benchmarking; under the benchmarking section of its 2017 policy, they extolled that, when it came to PISA, “its average performance is third in the region (out of 9 countries with valid results) behind Chile and Uruguay” (MoEduTT, 2017, p. 83). This fits the OECD’s agenda perfectly, as “PISA was designed to promote policy dialogue amongst OECD, and non-OECD countries, about learning outcomes” (Riley & Torrance, 2003, p. 420).

What has proven true about educational transfer from PISA in Trinidad and Tobago is not an anomaly. Tan (2019) noted that “Shanghai’s PISA performance success has prompted countries to ‘look East’ for policy transfer and externalization” (p. 392), prompting policy transfer within East Asian countries; the PISA results led to “Chinese officials’ strategy of capitalising on the dominant grievances of heavy schoolwork burden and school choice fever” after Shanghai’s performance” (p. 399). In Spain during the “2012–2013 reform of Spanish education, led by the conservative government, PISA is utilized as a ‘whip,’ pressing forward a reform agenda on the premise that Spain is underperforming in key subjects of mathematics, science, and reading” (Engel, 2015, p. 112), and “PISA is configured as a central driver and leading measure of quality within the Spanish system” (p. 109).

Concluding Thoughts

In this chapter, we have explored how policy transfer with the rise of “fast policy” (Peck & Theodore, 2015) is intertwined with the processes and institutions of cooperation in today’s multi-level governance architecture where multi-actor entities generate policy knowledge. This chapter has discussed educational transfer at the macro (global), meso (regional), and micro (national) levels through the case study of Trinidad and Tobago. We have looked at vertical transfer as well as the horizontal transfer of educational policies and priorities. Whether the transfer is happening globally through OECD or regionally through CARICOM, a convergence of the goals of the transfer is found in the neoliberal definitions of citizenship. Throughout the shifts influenced in part by extra-governmental entities has been a push for a neoliberal definition of citizenship in the Caribbean. Through its benchmarking and status as a knowledge bank, OECD pushes the goals of creating a neoliberal citizen who demonstrates a certain knowledge about the world, such as ones who “function as caring communities” and benefit from “skilled, engaged teachers” (PISA, 2015, p. 17). OECD may not be directly dictating what constitutes “skilled teachers” or the quality of education, but they do help transfer ideas of such things into regional citizenship education by steering the conversation through PISA. The regional level is where cooperative transfer borrows and creates its own ideas of neoliberal citizenship. Cooperative transfer links these ideas of citizenship together within CARICOM. Through the human resource development (HRD) strategy, skill sets are standardized across the region, because curricula are forced to adhere to the outline of the strategy. CARICOM’s Ideal Caribbean Person Initiative borrows twenty-first-century skills from the definitions used by the UN in alignment with the SDGs and by OECD through its discourse in the globally competitive marketplace to create goals for the citizens in the Caribbean with transferrable skills. The HRD strategy guides schools within countries in the Caribbean, Trinidad included, to consider these neoliberal ideals of transferrable skills when crafting citizenship education.

As the transfer of policies continues in the Caribbean, Trinidad, and Tobago and others like it are having their citizenship defined by extranational entities more and more. Educational transfer to national levels is both horizontal (cooperation) and vertical (rewesternization). In the case of the former, the transfer is linked to regional goals and aspirations (e.g., creating the ideal Caribbean person) and is voluntary. In the latter case, the transfer is based upon competition, standardization, benchmarking, and market fundamentals. The aim is to measure neoliberal citizens’ skills for the global marketplace. Through PISA, the OECD exercises educational governance by changing the direction of policy discourse and benchmarking and creating a script for a globalized, competitive world. This is part of a larger bureaucracy, wherein “‘infrastructural governance’ and ‘epistemological governance’ are key to the OECD’s capacity to exert influence and power in member states and beyond” (Sorensen et al., 2021, p. 101). CARICOM implements governance through a horizontal policy infrastructure, the standardization of goals, and universalized benchmarking, all guided by their HRD 2030 strategy. Through these structures, CARICOM “act[s] as a multi-level governance body that responds to gaps within the national governments to control transnational, regional, and global economic processes” (Jules, 2015, p. 5). The OECD transfer of best practices will only continue as it rolls out the Baby PISA (International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study), PISA for Development (extending to the developing world), and PISA4U (The Online Programme for School Improvement). CARICOM, meanwhile, is continuing within the neoliberal context to create its cosmopolitan Ideal Caribbean Person by 2030. Trinidad is caught at a crossroads: modernize with the region or modernize globally.