Archives
-
Gender equality policies in higher education: Atlantic and african universities
No. 45 (2024)Since the 1970s, international organisations have been working towards gender equality, as exemplified by the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1981) and the rise in equal opportunities policies since the adoption of the UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action(1995).
These policies have also gained prominence in the field of education, as currently worldwide: “general or inclusive education laws under education ministry responsibility focus on people with disabilities in 79% of countries, linguistic minorities in 60%, gender equality in 50% and ethnic and indigenous groups in 49%” (UNESCO, 2020: 30). This clearly points to the increasing commitments of countries to gender equality in education, and to the commitment of states to meet Sustainable Development Goal 4 “Quality Education” and SDG 5 “Gender Equality”.
-
The global dimensions in the processes of training and professionalization of the teaching function. Towards "regional" models and programs for the professionalization of teachers in the international context
No. 44 (2024)The training and professionalization of teachers continues to be in permanent debate both in the social and academic framework and, of course, in political discourse and action. Issues such as professional identity, requirements for access to programs, institutional and curricular training models, transition to professional practice (Eurydice, 2015), practical training, permanent training, attraction to teaching (European Commission, 2013) or the social recognition of the teaching function, are the object of analysis and reconsideration in different international contexts. And also the progressive incursion of the corporate business fabric not only in education but also in teacher training such as Teach for America (Schneider, 2013) and Teach for All (Lefebvre, Pradhan and Thomas, 2023).
The REEC monograph is dedicated to investigating, understanding and explaining how globalization processes affect the policies and practices of construction and implementation of teacher training and professionalization programs based on the regionalization of the academic and pedagogical cultures of the educational systems in which they are embedded. Therefore, it is intended to rebuild the network of institutional, curricular and methodological relationships in regional contexts at a global level. It is about verifying and proving the "overcoming of methodological nationalism" in comparative and international education. Teacher training models, both theoretical and practical, curricular and administrative, no longer respond to national geographies and nation-states, but rather take on broader dimensions that make them more dependent on linguistic and academic cultures and geopolitical influences. international (Vega Gil, 2011; Fernández Soria, J.M. et al, 2016). This is why the term "region" does not present an international geographical dimension but rather an academic, political, cultural and historical one.
From an institutional and curricular perspective, teacher training and professionalization models can be analyzed from a formal perspective (traditional, public/private, broad in time and in the curriculum) or non-formal (intensive, public/private, short, professionalizing, etc.). In this second case we have the "alternative routes" or "learning training".
In order to address the aforementioned challenges, it seems pertinent to recover the so-called "teacher training continuum" proposed by the OECD (2005), Eurydice (2002-2004) and a whole group of researchers to proceed with the analysis of the processes, policies and training programs and professionalization of the teaching function. A vector that is expressed in three times, institutional spaces and programmatic developments: the attraction towards the teaching profession (employment status, remuneration table, social image, good practices, access/admission model to training programs, etc..), training (institutional frameworks, curricular structure of the programs, professionalization processes, agencies and quality assurance, etc.) and retention/induction (mentoring/induction programs, incentives, licenses, mobility, continuous professional development (permanent training) ; that is, on-the-job training).
When we use the terminology of teacher training, we are referring to the training of teachers in the non-university educational system: early childhood education, primary education and secondary education (lower and higher) and, of course, the transitions between the different levels.
In historical terms, the studies should include the political and programmatic developments after World War II (the second half of the 20th century) which, as we know, offers different rhythms in the processes of educational reform based on the different contexts and political and economic conditions. institutional. And, of course, finish with the most recent reforms.
With this academic framework of reference, this special edition will welcome research papers that address the topic from different perspectives and approaches. Papers that address some of the topics and contents that we suggest below will be especially welcome.
- The model or models of training and/or professionalization of the teaching function from the Anglo-Saxon cultural perspective. Contributions from Colleges, Teach for America, Teach for All, School Direct, Alternative Routes, Agencies for Accreditation, SCITT, Teach First, QTS. It is a question not only of knowing the curricular programs, but also of analyzing their implications, their recipients, their evaluations, their connections with professional practice and with international competence evaluations.
- The model or models of training and professionalization based on the Confucian philosophy. We must ask ourselves about training for professional development and educational leadership. Because of the relationship between training and gender. Due to the requirements for access to training and recruitment. And, in institutional terms, by the external dimension of the Normal Universities, the National Universities of Education, the National Institutes of Education or the Institutes of Educational Development. And its connections with international competency assessments. The certifications and their accreditation agencies or bodies.
- Cultural diversities and teacher training in Africa. Different academic cultures and languages in teacher training. Decentralization and identity in teacher training programs. International Organizations and their involvement in training. And the “learning routes”? Do schools need technicians or teachers? Governance and training.
- Can we talk about a European model of teacher training? Unity and diversity in training programs and institutional developments. Has the Bologna Process generated a new formative pedagogy? How do you combine national educational sovereignty and the European dimension of training? Has the decentralization and territorialization of education been projected in teacher training programs? Is the postcolonialism of education and training more discursive or curricular? Attract, train and retain, for what school of tomorrow? Economy and privatization (governance) in training programs.
References
European Commission (2013). Study on policy measures to improve the attractiveness of the teaching profession in Europe. Final report. Vol. I and II. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015). Practices, perceptions and policies. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurydice (2002-2004). Key issues of education in Europe. Vol.3. The teaching profession in Europe: profile, trends and problems. Reports I-II-III-IV. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport.
Fernández Soria, J. M., López Torrijo, M., Cruz Orozco, J.I., Bascuñán Cortés, J., Mangual Andrés, S., García de Fez, S., Lloret Catalá, C. and Grau Vidal, R. (eds.) (2016). The initial training of secondary school teachers. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Grek, S., Maroy, Ch., and Verger, A. (eds.) (2021). World Yearbook of Education 2021. Accountability and Datafication in the Governance of Education. New York: Routledge.
Lefebvre, E.E, Pradhan, S., and Thomas, M.A.M. (2022). The discursive utility of the global, local, and national: Teach For All in Africa. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, 620-642.
Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., and Verger, A. (eds.) (2016). The Handbook of Global Education Policy. UK: Wiley Blackwell.
OECD (2005). Teacher's matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.
Schneider, J. (2013). Rhetoric and practice in pre-service teacher education: the case of Teach for America. Journal of Education Policy. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.825329
Tatto, M.T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T., & Thompson, I. (eds.) (2018). Learning to teach in England and the United States. The evolution of policy and practice. New York: Routledge.
Tatto, M.T. and Menter, I. (eds.)(2019). Knowledge, Policy and Practice in learning to teach: a cross-national study. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Vaillant, D. (2005). Teacher training in Latin America: re-inventing the traditional model. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Valle, J., Egido, I., & Ruiz, G. (2016). Presentation of number 5. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education (5). https://revistas.uam/jospoe/article/view/6678
Vega Gil, L. (ed.) (2011). Governance and policies of initial teacher training in Mediterranean Europe. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
-
Postcolonialism and education
No. 43 (2023)The last several decades have seen a resurgence of academic engagement with decolonial, postcolonial, anti-colonial, and southern theory scholarship as an intellectual resource to confront the persisting colonial legacies in education (Pashby, da Costa, Stein & Andreotti, 2021; Silova, Rappleye, & You, 2020; Takayama, Sriprakash, & Connell, 2017; Takayama, Heimans, & Vegneskumar, 2016; Connell, 2007; Walsh et. al 2018; Muller & Ferreira, 2018). These academic efforts have made invaluable contributions to extending and deepening our understanding of colonialism not as “a monolithic structure with roots exclusively in historical bad action,” but rather as a set of contemporary and evolving ontological, epistemic, and land relations that are often maintained “by good intentions and even good deeds” (Liborion, 2021, p. 7). We situate this special issue within these ongoing theoretical exchanges and intellectual movements, calling for a continued collective (re)rethinking of the role of education - despite all of its good intentions and deeds - in reproducing the logic of coloniality and thus contributing to multiple, intersecting crises we currently face: structural inequality and injustice, institutionalized racism and patriarchy, accelerating climate crisis and ongoing threat of species extinction, among many others.
Driven by the logic of modernity/coloniality, education is directly implicated in these crises. From competitive education league tables and global ranking exercises to education transfer of ‘best’ policies and practices, much of comparative education research has served to justify the Western modernist notions of progress and development, while displacing and sometimes purposefully erasing alternative worlds and worldviews. Today, schools and universities (especially in Western cultures) remain deeply rooted in the ideals of Western Enlightenment, perpetuating the logic of human exceptionalism and (neo)liberal individualism, while justifying the hierarchical order of being: White people of European descent over all people of color, men over women, perceived able bodies over disabled, and on and on (Martusewicz, 2018). Ultimately, the same logic of human exceptionalism sets apart all humans as superior to other living and non-living beings, justifying exploitation of nature by humans and threatening lives of everyone, everywhere.
This special issue serves as a challenge to reexamine our current preoccupation with global education trends – student achievement tests, competitive education league tables, global ranking exercises, and “best practices” – and rearticulate our research agendas in more relational, ecologically attuned, and geopolitically equitable ways. Given that even some of the most critical scholarship runs the risk of reproducing colonial relationships (e.g., by privileging contributions from English-speaking and/or Western-based academics rather than engaging with the plurality of knowledges beyond dominant languages and academic traditions), this multilingual special issue will welcome articles in Spanish, Portuguese and English that will address the following: How should education respond to a world of shifting planetary boundaries, collapsing ecosystems, and deepening inequalities? How might we learn from this uncertain time to construct new comparative genres that extend beyond mere reruns of Western metaphysics? What education policies, practices, and pedagogies can help to advance for more equitable and sustainable relationships in the relational flow of life where everyone and everything – both human and non-human – are deeply interconnected? How can de- and anti-colonial scholarship be practiced in ways that enact more ethical modes of being in the world? Who benefits and who is punished by the colonial entanglements of knowledge production in comparative education? How can the professionals and scholars in the field generate more sustainable (trans)local research practices that act as epistemic disobedience against colonialism?
-
The Global Education Industry: Comparative Education Analyses
No. 42 (2023)The participation of the private sector in education manifests itself in numerous ways and springs from diverse causes. Private schooling is the most well-established manifestation of the education privatization phenomenon, but it is far from being the most widespread or the most profitable. In the last decades, new forms of privatization, commercialization, and profit-making in education have emerged and spread. Originally coined by James Tooley (1999) to describe private education provision in developing countries, the concept of the "global education industry" (GEI) has more recently gained salience as a way to capture and make sense of a phenomenon that goes well beyond private schooling (Verger, Lubienski, & Steiner-Khamsi 2016; do Amaral, Steiner-Khamsi, & Thompson 2019).
The education industry has expanded rapidly, both territorially and economically, in recent years. Investment advisors, such as GSV-Advisors and HolonIQ, calculated that the value of the global education market was $6.5 (USD) trillion in 2020 and that this would reach $10 trillion by 2030. Numerous product trends, innovations, rebranding, mergers and acquisitions between companies make the GEI a booming sector. However, the GEI has not only experienced a quantitative evolution but has also undergone a qualitative change. The evolution of the internet and teaching and learning technologies have widely facilitated the cross-border supply and the transnational nature of many GEI services. The GEI is thus a dynamic and rapidly changing sector, with an increasingly rich and heterogeneous portfolio of activities. The range of goods and services covered by GEI has only become more diverse with the passage of time – it includes now hardware, on-line e-learning and teaching platforms, analog and digital educational materials, test preparation and certification services, school/university management services, education-specific ERP and CRM software, learning analytics, edu-marketing services, students' recruitment services, private tutoring and supplemental education services, behavioral management applications, teacher training programs, school improvement and consultancy services, among many other.
The GEI has also expanded its outreach, which has come to cover early childhood education and care, basic education, upper secondary, TVET, higher and continuing education, and non-formal education. Adding a further layer of complexity, the organizational profile of GEI is also notoriously diverse. As noted by Verger, Lubienski and Steiner-Khamsi (2016), the GEI field encompasses a wide range of edu-businesses in all shapes and sizes, from private school chains to consultancy firms and large education conglomerates. A process of hybridization between the public and corporate sectors has also been documented (Srivastava & Read, 2019), and there is evidence that a growing share of public schools and universities operate with a commercial rationale oriented at maximizing the the profitability of their investments (Thompson & Parreira do Amaral, 2019).
The EdTech industry is without a doubt the faction of the GEI that has expanded further in the last years, and that with better growth prospects.[1] Technological giants such as Google, Apple, Windows, and Facebook have promoted their educational divisions and products at a global scale, but in some regions face competition from less well-known tech companies such as Tencent and Alibaba, both based in China. At the same time, better established and more conventional edu-businesses such as Pearson or McGraw Hill are also moving toward digital education. As part of their business strategies, many of these big companies are acquiring numerous startups and other small businesses in the sector (Bolea, 2020). Particularly since the boom of EdTech start-ups, market hierarchies within the GEI appear thus to become more complex and continue to evolve in unpredictable ways. Also, the irruption of EdTech has entailed the consolidation of new and intricate business models that are not always easy to decipher. An example of this are the personalized learning platforms, which allow for tailored instruction informed by assessment tools and related algorithms. In some cases, companies offering these products turn a profit by selling users’ data to third parties, or through advertising (Hogan, Sellar, & Lingard, 2016; Williamson & Hogan, 2020).
As many have observed, the current salience enjoyed by EdTech and the GEI in general owes much to the massive school closures and general disruption triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which have forced the adoption of online learning and other technology-focused crisis responses in numerous educational settings (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Nonetheless, and while the COVID-19 crisis has proven a turning point, it needs to be understood as part of a broader trend that came from many years before the pandemic (Grek & Landri, 2021). These include economic factors, such as financial globalization and the growth of market forces (Verger et al., 2016), but also political factors that have turned many education systems into ‘business friendly’ environments conducive to the flourishing of GEI. Several advocacy networks including edu-businesses. philanthropic organizations and policy entrepreneurs, are very active in supporting the expansion of different factions of the GEI, the business strategy of specific corporations or, more broadly speaking, market-oriented reforms (Au & Lubienski 2016; Fontdevila, Verger & Avelar 2019). The expansion of the GEI reflects also broader contemporary trends in education – including increasing performance pressures for educational institutions and students; the datafication of educational governance; the integration of information and communication technologies for learning and assessment with instructional improvement strategies; or the increasing educational demand in most developing economies. Finally, the GEI has also benefited from rapid technological change, which constantly requires the re-skilling and up-skilling of the labor force.
The emergence of the GEI has generated important educational debates. Those in favor of strengthening the participation of private interests in education see advantages to the rise of the GEI, such as educational expansion at a lower cost, the promotion of innovation in education and the possibility of individualizing education. On-line learning platforms are expected to contribute to bring supplementary education to socially disadvantaged households cost-efficiently, or support students with learning or sensorial disabilities. Especially in developing countries, EdTech solutions are increasingly seen as a cost-effective way to promote individualized learning in contexts where high student-teacher ratios prevail (Rodríguez-Segura, 2021). There are also those that consider EdTech solutions as a tool to hold teachers accountable and strengthen the control of educational delivery (Adelman et al., 2015).
Conversely, other scholars consider that the professional autonomy of teachers could be undermined by the prescriptive and algorithm-based learning materials of the EdTech industry (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Behind the apparent educational innovation associated with ICT products and learning platforms, strongly standardized pedagogical proposals and old-world behaviorist logics are frequently hidden. Critiques often refer to the challenges triggered by the emergence of the GEI in terms of democracy and accountability. To them, an increasing participation of large transnational corporations in the governance and delivery of education could entail the undermining of democratic control of public education, and runs the risk of subverting the orientation of education as a public good (Komljenovic & Robertson, 2016). Finally, there are those that highlight the data ownership and privacy issues of the GEI products, especially when teaching, learning or assessment services collect users’ data massively and do not provide sufficient data protection guarantees. Part of these data might be highly sensitive and violate students’ privacy by, for instance, allowing their surveillance, harming their reputation, or being used for predictive sorting purposes (Nemorin, 2017; Wyatt-Smith, Lingard, & Heck 2019).
With this complex and unpredictable scenario in mind, this special issue will welcome research papers that address the phenomenon of the Global Education Industry from multiple angles. We will particularly welcome submissions that address the following topics and questions:
- The emergence and recontextualization of the GEI in specific territories: How does GEI’s penetration and manifestation vary across different world regions, education regulatory regimes or state-market complexes? How do the drivers or enabling factors behind the expansion of GEI differ?
- Unpacking the GEI landscape: How is the GEI structured and how has its composition and structure evolved over recent years? What are the new and changing patterns of cooperation, competition, hierarchization and hybridization with the public sector?
- In-depth analysis of specific GEI segments (such as EdTech, textbook publishers, school improvement products and services, assessment and certification industry, private tutoring), educational levels, or prominent or emerging players.
- Analyzing COVID-19 as a facilitator of GEI: Which has been the impact of the pandemic in the outreach of GEI, and its entrenchment with national education systems (especially in relation to processes of educational digitalization, but not only)? And, how has GEI itself been transformed/re-structured by the pandemic? (e.g., emergence of new players, change in market position, product portfolio diversification)
- The policy role of GEI actors, networks, and coalitions: How have GEI actors become influential in the formal and informal political and policy making spheres? Which influence and advocacy strategies do they deploy and to what end?
- Analyzing the effects of GEI penetration in terms of education quality and equity: Which are the impacts of GEI products in terms of segmentation, social stratification of schools and educational inequalities? Under which circumstances, and for whom, is the expansion of the GEI, including new forms of digitalized teaching and learning, more likely to translate into increased education quality or enhanced learning experience?
- Implications of the GEI in terms of teacher professional autonomy, democratic governance, and data privacy: How are schools, teachers and students coping with the GEI?
- Governance, regulation and monitoring strategies; “publification” and partnership attempts: How are governments coping with the GEI?
Monographic Coordinators: Antoni Verger (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona); Clara Fontdevila (University of Glasgow) y Mauro Moschetti (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
Important dates:
You have time to submit your 200-words abstract until February 21 2022. Abstracts can be written in Spanish, English, or Portuguese. A decision on accepted papers will be communicated to authors on March 1st 2022. Full papers (first draft) are expected by July 21st 2022. The special issue will be published in January 2023.
References
Adelman, M., M. P. Blimpo, D. Evans, A. Simbou, and N. Yarrow. 2015. “Can Information Technology Improve School Effectiveness in Haiti? Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Working Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Au, W., & Lubienski, C. (2016). The role of the Gates Foundation and the philanthropic sector in shaping the emerging education market. Lessons from the US on privatization of schools and education governance. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 28–43). New York: Routledge.
Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge.
Bolea, P. (2020). The Ed-Tech industry after the pandemic. GEPS Working Paper.
do Amaral, M. P., Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Thompson, C. (Eds.). (2019). Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement. Springer.
Fontdevila, C., Verger, A., & Avelar, M. (2021). The business of policy: a review of the corporate sector’s emerging strategies in the promotion of education reform. Critical studies in education, 62(2), 131-146.
Grek, S., & Landri, P. (2021). Editorial: Education in Europe and the COVID-19 Pandemic. European Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 393–402
Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 243-258.
Komljenovic, J., & Robertson, S. (2016). The dynamics of ‘market-making’ in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 622–636.
Nemorin, S. (2017). Post-panoptic pedagogies: The changing nature of school surveillance in the digital age. Surveillance and Society, 15(2), 239-253.
Srivastava, P., & Read, R. (2019). Philanthropic and impact investors: private sector engagement, hybridity and the problem of definition. In N. Ridge & A. Terway (Eds.), Philanthropy in Education (pp. 15-36). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rodriguez-Segura, D. (2021). EdTech in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence. The World Bank Research Observer. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab011
Thompson, C., & Parreira do Amaral, M. (2019). Introduction: Researching the Global Education Industry. In M. Parreira do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement (pp. 1–21). Springer.
Tooley, J. (1999) The Global Education Industry. Lessons from Private Education in Developing Countries. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation.
Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The emergence and structuring of the global education industry: Towards an analytical framework. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.
Williamson, B. & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International
Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E. (2019). Digital learning assessments and big data: Implications for teacher professionalism. UNESCO Education Research and Foresight Working Papers, 25.
Yanguas, M. L. (2020). Technology and educational choices: Evidence from a one-laptop-per-child program. Economics of Education Review, 76, 101984.
[1] See https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4986759/global-online-education-market-forecasts-from
-
(julio-diciembre)
No. 41 (2022) -
(january - june): Creativity, curiosity and new thinking in Comparative Education for the new norms of the 21st century
No. 40 (2022)The scholarly community calls for creativity and curiosity in epistemological approaches, and the engagement of innovative resources in moments when we seem to have arrived at a standstill from an ontological point of view. To overcome what Carney termed the ‘paralysis’ of Comparative Education (Carney, 2010, p. 126) such academic attitudes are essential. For this reason many academics are proposing our commitment to ‘a new and fresh thought in relation to what we study; the interpretative concepts, frames and theories that we develop in our work, the influences and contexts which mould the work we undertake as comparativists’ (Larsen, 2013), promoting, at the same time ‘the important task of creating a Comparative Education which addresses this complex intellectual predicament’ (Cowen, 2009).
Nevertheless, the current historical moments, in the beginning of the third decade of the XXIst century, also reveal paradoxes and dichotomies that make consensus and joint coexistence difficult. Thus, the greatly extended globalization enabled by the new technologies collides with the persisting and still current ‘culture of scholarship’ (Viñao, 2002) that is specific to and typical of each Nation-State. Postmodernism, with its virtues, such as the struggle against social injustice and defects like a tendency to sterile relativism, may well be stopped by the epistemological stances which insist on the continuing validity of the modern project.
On the other hand, the understanding of the ‘new norms’ of functioning in the XXIst century must necessarily take into account the reading of the world in times of COVID 19. There are academics who attribute the deep and last responsibilities of this uncertain and serious pandemic to the ‘insufficient scientific research, the existence of inappropriate educational systems, and to the sanitary and human services being globally fragile’ (Escotet, 2020). Such academics assign, definitively, the root of the current economic, political and social crisis to the ‘worldwide absence of social ethics’ (idem).
The discipline of Comparative Education, by means of its supranational as well as national resources, multiple academic connections, wide ranging publications in terms of articles by individuals, periodicals and handbooks, can be seen to be one of the most suitable fields of knowledge and one with a deep responsibility for the development of a worldwide expert and authoritative educational response. It should aim to re-orient global educational directions and contribute to solving the economic, political and social crises that can be seen worldwide. This response must necessarily be creative and innovative, although those terms must never imply denying the good elements in tradition. It is time for the establishment of a balance and continuing transition among Modernity and Postmodernity, rather than a breakdown or selective and narrow proposals for change.
It is time, in short, not only for the progressive creative resolution of the intellectual vulnerabilities of Comparative Education, but also, very specially, for the achievement of a ‘postrelativistic phase in the discourse formation of our science’ (García Ruiz, 2019) and in our current world. Such achievement will only be accomplished in an accurate way if it is undertaken by means of interdisciplinary work within the foundational social sciences that undergird education, such as sociology, philosophy, history and theology, those which articulate in ways that are both fertile and stable a future direction for comparative education and of the rest of humanity. The theoretical basis of these foundational social sciences as they have been defined in modern times has been shown to be still valid. The novelty which is called for in the current late-modern times is their practical engagement (Smith & Wexler, 1995) and real embodiment at all levels as the only possibility of overcoming the current crisis.
Bibliographical references
Carney, S. (2010). Reading the Global: Comparative Education at the End of an Era. En M. A. Larsen (Ed.), New Thinking in Comparative Education (125-142). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Cowen, R. (2009). Then and now: unit ideas and Comparative Education. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of Comparative Education (pp. 1277-1294). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Escotet, M. A. (2020). Pandemics, leadership and social ethics. Prospects, Springer.
García Ruiz, M. J. (2019). Educación Comparada, Teología y Postrelativismo, Revista Española de Educación Comparada, vol. 33, pp. 46-61.
Larsen, M. (2013). Pensamiento innovador en Educación Comparada. Madrid: UNED.
Smith, R. and Wexler, P. (1995). After Post-modernism. Education, Politics and Identity. London, The Falmer Press.
Viñao, A. (2002). Sistemas educativos, culturas escolares y reformas. Madrid: Morata.
Monographic Coordinators: Dr. Ruth Hayhoe, Dr. María José García Ruiz and Dr. María Jesús Martínez Usarralde
Reception of articles (máximum date) – 15/7/2021
-
(january - june): Education and Refugees
No. 35 (2020) -
(july - december): Comparatistic and Methodology
No. 34 (2019) -
(january - june): Comparative Religions
No. 33 (2019) -
(july-december)
No. 32 (2018) -
(january-june): Empires and Education
No. 31 (2018) -
(july-december)
No. 30 (2017) -
(july-december): Global Citizenship Education
No. 28 (2016) -
(january-june): Education in today’s Latin America
No. 27 (2016) -
(july-december): The SEEC in its Anniversary
No. 24 (2014) -
(january-june): Education and Minority Groups
No. 23 (2014) -
(july-december): Teacher Training in the XXIst Century
No. 22 (2013) -
(january-june): Infant Education in European Perspective
No. 21 (2013) -
(july-december): Excelent Educational Systems
No. 18 (2011) -
(january-june): Cooperation to Development in Education
No. 17 (2011)Bonds with Comparative Education from the Development Perspective
-
The European Space of Higher Education
No. 15 (2009)10th Anniversary of the Bolonia Declaration -
Migratory Flows and Education
No. 14 (2008) -
Management and Administration of School Institutions
No. 13 (2007)International Overview
-
Bolonia Process
No. 12 (2006)Dynamics and Challenges of Higher Education in Europe in the Beginning of a New Epoch
-
Special Edition: 1995-2005
No. 11 (2005)10 years of the Spanish Review of Comparative Education
-
Educational Perspectives in the ‘New Europe’
No. 10 (2004)Challenges and Tendencies of the Educational Policy in face of the Enlargement of the European Union
-
Childhood and its rights
No. 9 (2003) -
Society, Education and Cultural Identity
No. 8 (2002) -
Secondary Education
No. 7 (2001) -
Perspectives of Education in Latin America
No. 6 (2000) -
Higher Education in the Knowledge Society
No. 5 (1999) -
Education in the XXIst Century
No. 4 (1998) -
Concept, Methods and Techniques in Comparative Education
No. 3 (1997)Hommage to Jullien de París in the 150 Anniversary of his death
-
Educational Reforms in Europe: East-West
No. 1 (1995)
