Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
2500262 Sociology | OT | 4 | 0 |
Preferably, students should have a background on education (in subjects such as sociology of education, education sciences or economics of education).
1. Introduce a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives that can be used to examine education policy reform, processes, contents and outcomes.
2. Provide an international perspective to education policy change (focus on international organizations, international case studies and international data-bases) and develop a global governance approach to policy analysis.
3. Develop an understanding of the power, but also the limits of policy, as a lever for improving educational organizations.
4. Apply these perspectives in a range of education levels (basic education, higher education) and impact dimensions (education equity, efficiency, learning, etc.).
5. Assist the students to apply the course content in individual and group assignments on education policy analysis related topics.
5. Stimulate interest in further study of education policy and awareness of the complex, interdisciplinary and, at times, controversial nature of education policy analysis.
1. The sociological analysis of education policy.
1.1. The political sociology of education.
1.2. Theories on the role of the state in education.
1.3. The formation of education systems.
1.4. The governance paradigm: the role of non-state actors and collective action in education.
1.5. Sociological approaches to the evaluation of education policies (realistic evaluation, multiple-perspectives approach).
1.6. The enactment of educational policies and the micro-politics of schooling
2. Globalization and education policy
2.1. Theoretical approaches to the globalization and education relationship and global mechanisms and education policy influence.
2.2. The role of international organizations: OECD (e.g. PISA), World Bank, UNESCO, WTO, and EU (e.g. the Bologna Process).
2.3. The emerging private authority in education policy: transnational civil society, private foundations and transnational corporations.
3. Policies and programmatic ideas in education reform
3.1. Autonomy, decentralization and municipalization.
3.2. Privatization and quasi-markets in education: exogenous and endogenous privatization; educational public-private partnerships; vouchers and charters.
3.3. School choice and zonification.
3.4. New public management reforms: autonomy and accountability.
3.5. External standardized test: national and international large-scale assessments.
4. Impact dimensions of education policy
4.1. The educational chain: funding, processes, outcomes, and outputs.
4.2. Funding and efficiency.
4.3. Pedagogical processes: ability grouping, repetition, innovatioon.
4.4. School segregation and diversification.
4.5. Equity and inequalities (social class, gender, ethnic and migration, territorial).
4.6. Educational quality and students' achievement: outcomes and outputs.
4.7. School organization and management.
4.8. Teachers labour and professionalism.
Methodology
The subject is structured according to four type of activities that will follow very different methodological principles:
1. Theoretical classes organized around the lecturer presentation but that will be open to the intervention and participation of students.
2. Practical sessions (debates around the readings, documentaries and other multimedia materials, and practical exercises to solve problems).
3. Tutorial meetings to privide feed-back and guidance individually and/or in small groups.
4. Autonomous activities by the students (both individual and in group) such as reading the course texts or writing the assignments.
The final mark will be formed by:
1. Final exam (40%)
2. Group assginment (30%)
3. Case study class presentation (20%)
4. Participation in class and reading (10%)
Students with an average mark below 5 will be able to do a recovery exam.
The subject is structured according to four type of activities that will follow very different methodological principles:
1. Theoretical classes organized around the lecturer presentation but that will be open to the intervention and participation of students.
2. Practical sessions (debates around the readings, documentaries and other multimedia materials, and practical exercises to solve problems).
3. Tutorial meetings to privide feed-back and guidance individually and/or in small groups.
4. Autonomous activities by the students (both individual and in group) such as reading the course texts or writing the assignments.
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
master classes | 15 | 0.6 | 21, 1, 13, 4, 6, 5, 9, 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 16, 19, 20 |
seminars | 23 | 0.92 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 7, 8, 12, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 18, 11 |
Type: Supervised | |||
tutorials | 30 | 1.2 | 13, 6, 22 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
autonomous work and study | 75 | 3 | 21, 1, 2, 13, 3, 4, 6, 5, 9, 7, 8, 12, 10, 14, 15, 22, 16, 17, 19, 18, 20, 11 |
The final mark will be formed by:
1. Final exam (40%)
2. Group assginment (30%)
3. Case study class presentation (15%)
4. Class exercises and participation (15%)
Participation in class will be considered as an important criterion that can contribute to upgrade the final mark.
In accordance with article 117.2 of the UAB Academic Regulations, the evaluation of those students who have been enroled before may consist of a single synthesis examination. The students who wish to be evaluated this way should contact the professor at the beginning of the semester.
If plagiarism is detected, the evaluation of the test will be 0
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Class presentation | 15 | 1 | 0.04 | 1, 2, 13, 3, 4, 6, 5, 9, 7, 8, 12, 10, 14, 22, 17, 19, 20 |
Exam | 40 | 2 | 0.08 | 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 7, 8, 12, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 18, 11 |
Group essay | 30 | 2 | 0.08 | 21, 13, 4, 5, 14, 22, 17 |
in-class assignment and participation | 15 | 2 | 0.08 | 21, 1, 13, 3, 4, 6, 5, 8, 12, 10, 14, 15, 22, 19, 20 |
Cabalin, C., & Bellei, C. (2013). Chilean Student Movements: Sustained Struggle to Transform a Market-oriented Educational System. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 15(2), 108–123.
Bonal, X. (2012). Education policy and school segregation of migrant students in Catalonia: the politics of non-decision-making.
Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance. OECD Education Working Papers, (71), 1–31.
Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 1–17.
Day Ashley, L., Mcloughin, C., Engel, J., Wales, J., Rawal, S., Batley, R., … Rose, P. (2014). The role and impact of private schools in developing countries. Final report. Education Rigorous Literature Review. Department for International Development. London: Department for International Development.
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by Numbers: The PISA effect in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.
Heyneman, S. P. (2003). The history and problems in the making of education policy at the World Bank 1960–2000.International journal of educational development,23(3), 315-337.
Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order. International Journal of Educational Development,40, 9-18.
Robertson, S., Mundy, K., Verger, A., & Menashy, F. (2012). Public Private Partnerships In Education. (S. Robertson, A. Verger, K. Mundy, & F. Menashy, Eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. (only introduction)
Verger, A., Bonal, X., & Zancajo, A. (2016). What Are the Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education? A Realist Evaluation of the Chilean Education Quasi-Market. Comparative Education Review, 60(2), 223–248.
Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. (2018). Global Education Policy and International Development: A Revisited Introduction. In The Handbook of Global Education Policy (2nd ed., pp. 1–32). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. (only the introduction)
Verger, A., & Parcerisa, L. (2017). A Difficult Relationship Accountability Policies and Teachers: International Evidence and Key Premises for Future Research. In M. Akiba & G. LeTendre (Eds.), International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy (pp. 241–254). New York: Routledge.