Neo-liberal Governance Leads Education and Educational Leadership Astray

Moos, Lejf

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58650-2_2

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is no longer as self-evident as before (Beck, 2006;Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). The nation-state perspective is challenged by geopolitical re-positionings and changes in the economic production on a global scale (Karseth & Sivesind 2010;Moos 2017;Sivesind & Wahlström, 2017). The political agenda in global, post-industrial, knowledge economies and information societies has changed the role of the nation-or federal state, the ethos of knowledge, education, and research, as well as the governance policies and leadership of the education sector.…”

Section: The Globalized Neoliberal Policy Context As a Challenge For mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform

Uljens

2018

NJCIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a state level both curriculum policy work and educational leadership are increasingly challenged by new transnational phenomena in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas alike: expanding cultural neo-national-ism, more populist politics, economic protectionism, new forms of self-centered identity formation, reli-gious fundamentalism, mistrust in democratic political participation, and decreasing respect for knowledge institutions and established media. These developments have many roots but appear partly as consequences of neoliberally driven policy initiatives and globalization. Consequently, there is increasing mistrust as to whether curriculum, leadership, and evaluation initiatives driven by a global neoliberal policy may provide sustainable solutions for guiding reforms in the public sector, including education. Not surprisingly, also the existing curriculum and educational leadership theory are under scrutiny. This article provides openings pointing to a hermeneutic and systems-oriented, multilevel and professional approach for reorienting na-tional systems with respect to collaborative work on curriculum, leadership, and evaluation. Such a Bild-ung-centered view on human identity, growth, and citizenship is congruent with a non-affirmative educa-tion theory (NAT). It provides a conceptualization that is able to deal with curriculum and leadership gen-uinely based on an idea of education. Such a position grounds educational leadership, curriculum, and pol-icy work, as well as evaluation and school reform, in education theory. As a general education theory the non-affirmative position is able to bring together an analysis of educational aims, contents, and methods of schooling, teacher professionalism, and leadership. In addition, NAT frames an understanding of how cur-riculum work at different levels is initiated, implemented, and enacted. In bridging these perspectives, it is argued that critical and hermeneutic NAT provides a theoretically productive approach to present-day local, national, and global education problems. As a foundational frame of reference, NAT allows us to perceive curriculum discourses as different forms of mediating, hermeneutic invitations, and summoning to self-activity and self-formation (Bildung), within and for a democratic polity.

show abstract

Section: The Globalized Neoliberal Policy Context As a Challenge For mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform

Uljens

2018

NJCIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on works of Wolfgang Klafki (2001) we name this understanding of general and comprehensive education for Democratic Bildung, because the intention is to position children in the world, in democratic communities and societies in ways that make them competent in understanding and deliberating with other people. Klafki sums the discussion up in these three points: General education must be an education for everybody to self-determination abilities (Selbstbestimmung), participation capabilities (Mitbestimmung) and solidarity capabilities (Solidaritätsfähigkeit); a critical rethinking of the General; and Education as developing all human capabilities (Klafki, 1986(Klafki, /2007 The other is attached to the competitive state (a vision that started to be produced in the 1980ies), and we call it the "Outcomes Discourse" (Moos 2017) because the fundamental outcomes of education in this discourse are the measurable students' learning outcomes. In discussion on education there is a tendency for homogenization of educational practices e.g.…”

Section: Two Discourses On Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

General education. Homogenised education for the globalized world?

Moos

Wubbels

2018

Z Erziehungswiss

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societies need to make sure that the next generation is ready and capable to take over in due time, be it in working life, culture, civil society, politics or families. Therefore, society at large and specifically state governments need to assist the efforts of families and local communities. Such provisions have been a basic premise for general educational theories for centuries, when education was often named Democratic and Comprehensive Bildung. At present this premise needs reconceptualization, because societies are changing dramatically towards opening up for interactions and relations with the widest possible area: the globe. Many societal challenges have effects across nations, calling for trans-national coordination, management and solutions, -for homogenized and standard based policy making. At the same time inspirations from multiple sources produce conflicting visions and rival discourses about what the purposes of and the means for education should be.In this paper we analyze and discuss two contemporary, fundamentally dissimilar discourses on education and their theoretical and societal roots. Our main method is discourse analysis. We argue for inclusion of a global world-view in national education. We shall be critical, however, to the technocratic turn and the homogenization of education per se and argue for a Democratic Bildung perspective in education for world citizenship. Abstract (German)Gesellschaften haben dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die nächste Generation darauf vorbereitet ist und sich auch dazu bereitfindet, zu angemessener Zeit Verantwortung zu übernehmen -sei es nun im Berufsleben oder in der Kultur, in Zivilgesellschaft, Politik oder Familie. Deshalb müssen die Gesellschaften insgesamt und die Regierungen im Besonderen das Bestreben von Familien und lokalen Gemeinschaften unterstützen, ihren Kindern die besten Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten zu verschaffen. Solche Fürsorgekonzepte sind für Jahrhunderte die elementare Voraussetzung für die erziehungswissenschaftliche Theoriebildung gewesen, immer dann, wenn Erziehung als demokratische oder allgemeine Bildung verstanden wurde. In der Gegenwart muss diese Voraussetzung aber neu konzeptualisiert werden, weil sich Gesellschaften dramatisch verändern, indem sie sich für gemeinschaftliche Handlungen und Beziehungen öffnen, die sich auf das denkbar größte Gebiet beziehen, auf den Globus. Viele gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen haben Effekte, die über [einzelne] Nationen hinweg wirken und deshalb transnationale Koordination, Management und Problemlösung verlangen -für eine homogenisierte und auf gemeinsamen Standards beruhende Politik. Gleichzeitig erzeugt die Inspiration aus unterschiedlichen Quellen konflikthafte Visionen und rivalisierende Diskurse über die Zielsetzung von Erziehung sowie die Wahl der dafür geeigneten Mittel.

show abstract

“…Two dominant, competing discourses (ways in which we can legitimately verbalise or talk about social phenomenon like education) are presently seen in many Nordic countries, and most certainly in Denmark (Moos, 2016;Moos & Wubbels, 2018). One discourse emerged mainly from the welfare-state model, a political post World War 2 vision, and is referred to as the democratic Bildung discourse.…”

Section: Visions and Context: Discourses On Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The other discourse is emerging in the so-called competitive state (Pedersen, 2011), a vision that evolved in the 1980's, which I call the "outcome discourse" (Moos, 2017a) because the fundamental outcomes of education in this discourse are the students' measurable learning outcomes. In discussions on education in this discourse, there is a tendency for the homogenisation of educational practices.…”

Section: Visions and Context: Discourses On Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educating and Leading for World Citizenship

Moos

2018

NJCIE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two perspectives on local and global societies, and therefore also on education, are explored and discussed in this paper. On one hand, society as a civilisation is producing an outcome-based discourse with a focus on marketplaces, governance, bureaucracies and accountability. On the other hand, society focuses on cul-ture through arts, language, history, relations and communication, producing a democratic Bildung dis-course. At a global level, I see those discourses shaping discourses of world citizenship and of global mar-ketplace logics with technocratic homogenisation. Those trends and tendencies are found through social analytic strategies in these categories: context of discourses, visions, themes, processes, and leadership.

show abstract

Neo-liberal Governance Leads Education and Educational Leadership Astray

Cited by 23 publications

References 41 publications

Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform

Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform

General education. Homogenised education for the globalized world?

Educating and Leading for World Citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About