Search

This article takes a critical look at the practices and foundations of global governance and global campaigns such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It does so by discussing the case of global citizenship education (GCEd). In addition to highlighting severe limitations related to the practice and monitoring of GCEd, it makes explicit the onto-epistemic assumptions that are embedded in these structures, but which are infrequently acknowledged—and are thus "hiding in plain sight." It shows that common conceptions of GCEd hide the Christian-positivist-liberal-capitalist foundations from which GCEd and global governance have emerged and by which they are constrained. It argues that GCEd and global governance thus tend to serve as a force for exclusion rather than inclusion. • Makes explicit the onto-epistemic assumptions of global governance. • Clarifies the Christian-positivist-liberal-capitalist origins of these assumptions. • Examines the case of global citizenship education. • Addresses gaps in the practice and monitoring of global citizenship education. • Provides suggestions for moving forward inside and outside global goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the Civil Society Education Fund’s (CSEF) impact on the non-governmental organisation education partnership (NEP) in Cambodia. With financial backing from the World Bank and the Fast Track Initiative, the CSEF is an initiative that is managed internationally by the Global Campaign for Education. Its goal is to help national networks of non-governmental organizations participate in education decision-making and to serve as a watchdog for progress related to internationally agreed upon goals. Through the CSEF, the deployment of various strategies, and other external factors, the NEP was able to able to achieve recognition, legitimacy and influence at the national level. However, the NEP has had to balance workingwiththe state and workingforthe state. This case study highlights strategies used by civil society actors to engage state actors, the efficacy of international support, and the conflicts inherent in both. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Plan 2021 is a national education strategy released by the Salvadoran Ministry of Education (MINED) in March of 2005 to guide education policy through 2021. According to the policy itself, preparation for Plan 2021 began in June 2004 and was the product of four disparate inputs. These include: (a) review of existing research on education produced between 2002 and 2004, (b) creation of a Presidential Commission to offer recommendations, (c) inclusion of commitments made by El Salvador to international agreements (e.g., Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals), and (d) execution of a series of consultations at the local level throughout the country (MINED 2005b). Thus, according to the policy document itself, not only were each of these four inputs given equal weight, but, additionally, there was no involvement by international actors, with the MINED alone managing the process. However, even a cursory search for information related to Plan 2021 indicates that a range of international actors was involved, thus raising questions about how official accounts of the policy’s formation diverge from the process as it actually happened. The case of this policy likewise raises questions about how to investigate and interpret such processes. The present paper not only reveals how Plan 2021 was actually made but also attempts to make a contribution by suggesting the relevance of multi-perspective analysis, in addition to applying multiple perspectives—namely, rational, organizational, and political perspectives—to the interpretation of this case. The content of this analysis is particularly relevant at this point in time to the field of international education policy as scholars are grappling with how to understand and investigate processes of education policy formation characterized by involvement and influence from external (i.e., international) actors. The article concludes by underscoring the utility of this framework while also recommending that it be used in conjunction with insights from recent scholarship on the global governance of education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]