Controversies in Education pp 139-148

Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 3) | Cite as

Why Global Policies Fail Disengaged Young People at the Local Level

Chapter

Abstract

School retention rates appear to have an iconic status in the global world. This chapter discusses the failure of global educational governance as an economic remedy specifically in relation to the raising of the school leaving age in Australia. It argues that global policy-making for economic competitiveness not only “sidelines the social purposes of education” (Ball S, Curriculo sem Fronteiras 1(2):27–43, 2001) and is designed to exercise control over the education process but also fails to recognise the particularity of the local. To make the case two threads are pursued. The first is a critique of the research on the returns for schooling per se. We argue that the research evidence promoted by organisations such as the OECD is dogged by methodological and data problems. The second thread draws attention to the need to identify heterogeneity in returns, particularly with reference to those young people who are currently disengaged and reluctant learners. It will draw attention to the work of Dockery (Assessing the value of additional years of schooling for the non academically inclined. LSAY research reports. Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report #38. ACEReSearch, 2005) who has found compulsion is adverse for non-academically able children and if it is the national desire to provide an inclusive schooling for all, up to the age of 17 years, then pathways and pedagogical practices for those young people who are expressing resistance and alienation will need to both change and be appropriately resourced.

References

  1. Ball, S. (2001). Global policies and vernacular politics in education. Curriculo sem Fronteiras, 1(2), 27–43. www.curriculosemfronteiras.org. Accessed 15 Sept 2011.
  2. Chib, S., & Jacobi, L. (2011). Returns to compulsory schooling in Britain (IZA Discussion Paper No. 5564). Available at SSRN: http://ssm.com/abstract=1790675. Accessed 1 Oct 2011.
  3. Dockery, A. (2005). Assessing the value of additional years of schooling for the non academically inclined. LSAY research reports (Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report #38). Melbourne: ACEReSearch.Google Scholar
  4. Dryzek, J. (2002). A post-positivist policy-analytic travelogue. Good Society, 11(2), 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hodgson, D. (2011). Policy rationalities and policy technologies: A programme for analysing the raised school-leaving age in Western Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kemmis, S. (2011). Personal correspondence.Google Scholar
  7. Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 37–64). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Leigh, A., & Ryan, C. (2008). Estimating returns to education using different natural experiment techniques. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). Globalization and sociology of education policy: The case of PISA. In R. Brooks, M. McCormack, & K. Bhopal (Eds.), Contemporary debates in the sociology of education. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. Marginson, S. (2006). National and global competition in higher education. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & A. Halsey (Eds.), Education, globalization and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McGregor, G., Mills, M., & Thomson, P. (2011). Educating in the margins, lessons for the mainstream. In T. Wrigley, P. Thomson, & B. Lingard (Eds.), Changing schools: Alternative ways to make a difference (pp. 47–60). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Meredyth, D. (1998). Corporatising education. In M. Dean & B. Hindess (Eds.), Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government (pp. 20–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. OECD. (2005). Economic survey: United Kingdom. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  14. OECD. (2008). Economic survey: Australia. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  15. OECD. (2009). Jobs for youth: Australia. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  16. OECD. (2010). Off to a good start? Jobs for youth. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Taylor, A. (2002). I honestly can’t see the point: Young negotiation of the ideology of school completion. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. te Riele, K. (2006). Youth ‘at risk’: Further marginalising the marginalised? Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trostel, P., Walker, I., & Woolley, P. (2002). Estimates of the economic returns to schooling for 28 countries. Labour Economics, 9(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vickers, M. (2007). Youth transition. In R. Connell et al. (Eds.), Education, change and society (pp. 51–69). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Winter, P. (2011). Coming into the world. Uniqueness and the beautiful risk of education. An interview with Gert Biesta. Studies in Philosophy of Education, published online: 29 May 2011.Google Scholar
  23. Woodward, R. (2009). The organisation for economic co-operation and development. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalisation. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of NewcastleOurimbahAustralia

Personalised recommendations