グローバル教育政策市場を通じた「教育のヘゲモニー」の形成

──教育研究所の対外戦略をめぐる構造的問題の分析──

抄録

The current scenario in the educational field has seen major changes impacted by globalization in which educational policies are bought and sold across national borders with nation states joining this market as actors. The purpose of this study is to point out the structural problems inherent in the reality of the global education policy market.

Researchers who criticize neoliberal reform consider globalization as a back down of nation states. However, changes through globalization have brought forth a new position for nation states in which they have partly expanded their functions. Ball (2012) points out that ever since the private sector made its foray in the educational field, the mode of political processes and community has changed, and a new form of ‘network governance’ has emerged. He termed this the ‘global education policy’ (see also Rizvi & Lingard 2010). The focus of this research is on the government-affiliated educational research institutes of developed countries that are active participants in this ‘global education policy market’ as actors by contracting work in teacher training and consulting.

Four institutes were chosen to study the concrete activities of the nation state in the international market. The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Central Institute for Test Development (Cito), and the German Institute for International Education Research (DIPF) emerged as the leading institutions that have expanded their business to the international market as per a large-scale assessment, and they play a central role in the operation of PISA. In Singapore, which exhibited a high score in PISA, the National Institute of Education (NIE) and its private arm, NIE International Pte Lte (NIEI), carry out educational consulting in close coordination with the central government.

Through these four cases, it is apparent that a ‘global education policy market’ is on the rise. The relationship between the countries offering expertise and the countries at a disadvantage is based on the exchange of educational performance and economic resources; countries that have the advantages of educational performance impart their expertise in educational policy while the economically disadvantaged nations pay for this know-how by using their economic resources. This exchange is understood superficially as following the market mechanism. The choice is made according to the rational supply-demand relationship and both sides are expected to agree on fair terms. However, most of the countries seeking this expertise in the field of education are non-members of the OECD, and they have no seats on the PISA Governing Board. Therefore, they have no influence on the selection, definition, value setting, and frameworks of the assessment. The educational performance is unilaterally priced by the countries offering their knowledge in the field and therefore the rules for balancing supply and demand are biased. Hence, this kind of trade can possibly result in the status quo being maintained, wherein the privileged countries continue to be at an advantage and dominate while the disadvantaged remain submissive.

This asymmetric relationship is a kind of ‘Hegemony’ (Gramsci 1975). Furthermore, ‘Educational Hegemony’ has come into being through the supply of consulting services from developed countries to developing countries.