FreshEd

This is the final show in the global learning metrics mini-series. The two day inaugural CIES symposium has concluded. As a wrap up, I’m going to play my brief conversation with Pasi Sahlberg, a professor at the University of Helsinki, about some of his reactions to the symposium. He tweets at @pasi_sahlberg. I hope you’ve enjoyed this mini-series!

Day one of the CIES symposium just ended. Before we start day two, I thought it important to revisit a remark Tom Popkewitz made on this podcast a few months ago. Tom argued that educational metrics, and the comparison that comes with them, have always been about inscribing in children a certain moral order. I’ve been surprised that this type of thinking has been relatively absent in the conversations today. What will tomorrow bring? Stay tuned!

This is the last installment of the FreshEd mini-series on global learning metrics. On Thursday, the CIES Symposium kicks off in Scottsdale, Arizona. For this last show, I’ve invited Karen Mundy to talk about the Global Partnership for Education. Karen offers interesting insight into learning metrics because she is both an academic and a development practitioner. Karen Mundy is the Chief Technical Officer at the Global Partnership for Education. She came to the Global Partnership for Education in 2014 from the University of Toronto where she was Professor and Associate Dean of Research, International and Innovation. She will present some of the ideas discussed in this podcast at the CIES Symposium in Scottsdale Arizona, which starts on Thursday. Now it’s time for me to catch my flight! See you in Scottsdale!

We often think of international assessments as being synonymous with PISA, the OECD international assessment that has been the focus of many shows in FreshEd’s mini-series on global learning metrics. But international assessments have a history far beyond PISA. In fact, it was the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, known as the IEA, that first introduced large-scale comparative studies of educational systems in the late 1950s. This history is important to consider when thinking about global learning metrics today. My guest today is Dirk Hastedt, Executive Director of the IEA. He’s spent many years working with the IEA, seeing the development of assessments in new subjects, such as citizenship and computer literacies, and the emergence of league tables, which rank education systems and have become popular today. Drik offers valuable insight for any discussion on the feasibility or desirability of global learning metrics. Check out www.FreshEdpodcast.com for more details.

Next week the CIES Symposium will take place where scholars and practitioners from around the world will come together to discuss and debate the desirability and feasibility of global learning metrics. I’ve had the honor of interviewing many of the speakers who will attend the symposium. And one things that has struck me during my conversations about global learning metrics is that often a universal meaning of education is assumed by the tests and those who use it. For instance, a 2013 OECD report that used PISA data was entitled “What makes Schools Successful?” Implied in the very title of that report is an assumption that there is a universal definition of success, as if all schools around the world agreed on what it means to be successful. Moreover, the report implies that it is PISA data itself that can reveal the answer. Perhaps more clearly, a 2013 report by the Learning Metrics Task Force, which is a multi-stakeholder collaboration organized by UNESCO Institute of Statistics and the Center for Universal Education at Brookings, was entitled Toward Universal Learning. The very goal of the task force seems to be reaching universal learning. But can there actually be one definition of learning and success? Is it possible, in other words, to have a universal notion of “good” education? This question has bugged me for some time, so I’ve invited Supriya Baily back to the show to discuss this idea of a “good” education in relation to global learning metrics. She points out how tests such as PISA are often culturally unresponsive and do not enable teachers to thrive. Although Supriya is hopeful that Global learning metrics can be meaningful with some revision, she cautions against universalizing concepts of learning or success. Supriya Baily is an Associate Professor at George Mason University and the Associate Director for the Center for International Education. She will present some of the ideas discussed today at the CIES Symposium next week. Check out www.freshedpodcast.com for more details.

Today we continue our focus on global learning metrics during the lead up to the inaugural CIES symposium, which will take place in Scottsdale, AZ from November 10-11. The past shows in this mini-series have focused broadly on global learning metrics: We’ve looked at the history and value of learning metrics for the perspective of national governments; we’ve examined the power of tests like PISA; and we’ve heard critiques of policy borrowing and outcome-based approaches to education that rely on learning metrics and their subsequent rankings. But we haven’t yet looked at some of the questions on the tests that form the proxies for global learning metrics. My guest today is Dr. Inés Dussel, Researcher and Professor at the Department of Educational Research, Center for Advanced Studies and Research (DIE-CINVESTAV) in Mexico. She argues that global learning metrics are not culturally sensitive and uses examples from her work on digital literacy to show why. Inés critiques PISA for taking a narrow focus of learning as only related to cognitive skills — the ability for students to read or write or problem solve. By contrast, she takes a broad view of learning, which encompasses not only cognitive skills but also a collection of interpersonal and social skills. Of course, these latter skill sets are nearly impossible to measure in one school let alone worldwide using universal metrics. And this is the crux of the issue: how can global learning metrics measure any skill set across so many different contexts and cultures worldwide? Photo credit: La Nación

Today we explore some of the problems with global learning metrics from the perspective of teacher unions. In particular, we look at outcomes-based approaches to international education development. Such an approach uses global learning metrics to quantify supposed outcomes of education. But as a result, education is reduced and simplified. My guest today is David Edwards, Deputy General Secretary of Education International in Brussels. Education International is the global federation of teacher unions. He will present some of the ideas discussed today at the CIES Symposium in November. Check out FreshEdpodcast.com for more details about the event.

Today we continue our mini-series on global learning metrics during the lead up to the inaugural CIES Symposium, which will take place in Scottsdale, AZ this November. So far in this mini-series, we’ve heard why international assessments can be valuable for national governments and how many governments have begun to see like PISA. Today, we jump into a case study of the way in which countries learn from one another based on international assessments. My guest, Professor Bob Adamson, takes us through the case of how England learned from Hong Kong. He unpacks the selective learning of English policymakers on their visits to Hong Kong. He see this as akin to a pantomime. The larger implication of the rise of superficial policy referencing among countries is the challenge it brings to comparative education. Bob Adamson is Chair Professor of Curriculum Reform and Director of the Centre for Lifelong Learning Research and Development at the Education University of Hong Kong. In December 2015, Bob was named UNESCO Chair holder in Technical and Vocational Education and Lifelong Learning.

Today we continue the mini-series on global learning metrics. Last week we heard from Eric Hanushek about the desirability of large scale international assessments such as PISA. He argued that cross-national tests offer ways for countries to see what is possible when it comes to student learning. But what effect are large scale international assessments having on national governments? In my conversation today, I speak with Radhika Gorur about how PISA, and its embedded assumptions about education, are going a global. In our conversation, Radhika unpacks what it means to “see like PISA.” She finds three major ways governments around the world have embraced PISA. First, governments have assumed that the very purpose of education is to increase GDP, which is a cornerstone of PISA and the OECD. But of course education has many more values that are much harder to define. Second governments have narrowed the field of vision of the meaning of education to be in line with what PISA has been able to test. In effect, we only talk about what we can actually measure on the test, missing so many other subjects and areas that are also important to education. And the third issue she finds is that we now talk about an impersonal “Student” as represented by PISA. The many reports put out by the OECD talk about so-called “students”, but they are always abstracted and without color or context. Who is this so-called PISA “student” and why do states compare their young citizens to her? Radhika Gorur is a Senior Lecturer at Deakin University, Australia, and a Director of the Laboratory for International Assessment Studies. She will speak at the inaugural CIES Symposium this November. The article discussed in this podcast can be found in the European Educational Research Journal. For more information, check out www.freshedpodcast.com

Today marks the first installment of a seven-part miniseries on Global Learning Metrics. In effort to promote the inaugural Symposium of the Comparative and International Education Society, FreshEd will air interviews with some of the invited speakers. To kick things off in this episode, I speak with renowned educational economist Eric A. Hanushek about global learning metrics and his use of cross national educational data to understand what is possible in education systems around the globe. He has authored or edited twenty-three books along with over 200 articles. Dr. Hanushek is perhaps most famous for introducing the idea of measuring teacher quality through the growth in student achievement, which forms the basis for value-added measures for teachers and schools. More recently, his work has focused on the quality of education and its connection to national economic growth. Eric A. Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and will speak at the CIES Symposium this November. I hope these shows will spark your interest in joining the Symposium. It starts November 10 in Scottsdale, Arizona. You find more details at FreshEdPodcast.com.