The Future of Education for All as a Global Regime of Educational Governance

Abstract

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1The Future of Education for All as a Global Regime of Educational Governance 1 AbstractThe article critically considers the future of Education for All (EFA) understood as a global regime of educational governance. The article sets out an understanding of global governance, world order, power and legitimacy within which EFA is embedded. It explains what is meant by EFA as a regime of global governance and as part of a 'regime complex' along with other regimes concerned with different areas of economic and social development that impact on education and development. The article traces the genealogy of EFA focusing on the development of key tensions and contradictions since the late 1980s.Here the emphasis will be on understanding the effects of different kinds of power that are in turn linked to broader global interests within a changing world order. The article concludes by considering the future of EFA. It is suggested that EFA since the adoption of the Incheon declaration and Framework for Action is giving way to a new global regime of educational governance in which education and in particular learning is linked to sustainable development, albeit in contradictory ways.

The Many Meanings of Quality Education: Politics of Targets and Indicators in SDG4

“…Tikly (), reflects on the EFA movement and the formulation of SDG4, depicting this as a form of global governance, in which a group of powerful actors engaged in a process of building and maintaining legitimacy. He shows how the formulation of principles, norms, rules and decision‐making procedures around EFA had the effect of generating particular discourses which accommodated tensions and contradictions within and between economic, socio‐cultural and political perspectives.…”

“…The conflict hinged on narrow versus broad conceptions of these terms and the institutional histories of different organisations and governments, which supported different interpretations. Tikly () identifies areas of tension around EFA, and these are evident in many of the discussions associated with the formulation of the SDG4 targets at the eight moments outlined above. The contestation between the narrow and the broad approach to quality and equalities are evident in:…”

“…From 2000 the private sector, notably multinational corporations in ICT, had become increasingly active and well-connected in the EFA movement, working partly through Foundations and partly as providers (Ball, 2016;Draxler, 2015;Sayed and Ahmed, 2018). Tikly (2017), reflects on the EFA movement and the formulation of SDG4, depicting this as a form of global governance, in which a group of powerful actors engaged in a process of building and maintaining legitimacy. He shows how the formulation of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around EFA had the effect of generating particular discourses which accommodated tensions and contradictions within and between economic, socio-cultural and political perspectives.…”

Convergencia de perspectivas sobre políticas en educación inclusiva

“…Esta renovada agenda nace respaldada por un proceso de diálogo intenso y de un acuerdo amplio entre diversidad de instituciones y actores (UNESCO, 2014; que refleja un nuevo régimen de gobierno educativo global sustentado en las ideas fuerza de aprendizaje para todos y todas, y de educación para el desarrollo sostenible (Tikly, 2017). Esencialmente destacamos cinco atributos fundamentales de la misma.…”

Private encroachment through crisis-making: The privatization of education for refugees

“…I used purposeful sampling to narrow down documents, reports, policy briefs, and other written artifacts produced by these actors that are widely referenced within the policy network, in recognition of the constructive power of ideas in policy-making but also the politics of knowledge production and dissemination (Verger, Fontdevila, et al, 2016). Although global policy documents have often failed to promote actual action, such as those associated with Education for All, they are still resources that contribute to establishing and maintaining the legitimacy of a global regime of governance (Tikly, 2017). These documents also capture the process of change in hegemonic discourses governing policies and action surrounding refugee education.…”