Search

This theoretical article not only applies a decolonial critique to the Christian-positivist-liberal-capitalist foundations of global governance and global education policies but also suggests an alternative approach to constructing globality that respects and learns from onto-epistemic difference, rather than furthering the epistemicide of non-Western and Indigenous worldviews by forcing them to assimilate to Western modernity. This article seeks to make an intervention in the literature on global governance, global education policy, and global citizenship education, where decolonial lenses are scantly employed. We argue that public school teachers are using frameworks rooted in the matrix of coloniality to teach a multicultural population in an occupied land about concepts of Global Citizenship Education that not only divert attention away from other ways of being, acting, and knowing but which, by their nature, cannot even recognize those other ways of being--at least not without contradicting its own Christian-positivist-liberal-capitalist onto-epistemic foundations.

In the field of global education policy, it is common for scholars to reflect on the progress made toward internationally agreed-upon agendas, such as Education for All (EFA). However, scant research has turned the gaze back on the major multilateral institutions that commit to taking the lead in meeting these agendas in order to ask, what implications do such agendas have for these organizations? We respond in this article by investigating the way in which UNESCO used its position as the coordinator of EFA to help it regain some of the legitimacy it lost in the preceding decades. To do so, the article first elaborates a tripartite conceptualization of organizational legitimacy and then applies it to the two prongs of UNESCO's strategy--EFA coordination and the production of the Global Monitoring Reports (GMRs) during a key period, 2000-2014, that were at the forefront of UNESCO's efforts to rebrand and reposition itself in the context of multilateralism.

This article uses multiple perspectives to frame international processes of education policy formation and then applies the framework to El Salvador's Plan 2021 between 2003 and 2005. These perspectives are policy attraction, policy negotiation, policy imposition, and policy hybridization. Research reveals that the formation of Plan 2021 was the product of both policy imposition by international actors and policy negotiation by national policy makers. This article further extrapolates three phenomena from the findings on Plan 2021--termed here percolation, reverberation, and structural legitimization--that help to explain the way in which international influence manifests in national education policy formation. (Contains 2 tables, 2 figures, and 19 footnotes.)