Post on 27-Feb-2023
EDUC 2032: Educational Policy and Politics, Semester 1, 2013/14
Educational policies are increasingly reflecting global trends.
Is this a positive or negative development?
Educational policy is inextricably linked with
globalization. Inherent in this idea of globalisation is the
increasing interdependency among different countries and nations
around the globe. This only means that nations and individuals
are becoming more interconnected and the world is becoming even
smaller through globalization. (Alberto, 2005, p. 102) This paper
will discuss the concept of globalization and its implications on
educational policies and a conclusion will be made to determine
whether it is a desirable or undesirable phenomenon.
Educational policies are very much interrelated with other
policy domains especially those of economic and cultural fields.
Local and national governments, consciously or unconsciously play
roles in transmitting the global ideologies which is reinforced
and influenced by transnational organisations. (Rizvi and
Lingard, 2010, p. xii) Global actors may impose on the term
“globalisation discourse” tactically; in order enforce their own
agenda. (Dodds, n.d, p. 8) This “globalization discourse” has
produced convoluted demographic profiles through immigration and
the global mobility of cultural workers which bring challenges to
policy developments. It is also particularly responsible for the
reduction of power of the nation state due to spread of multi-
national corporations and rise of international organizations
which restrained the state in endorsing and addressing stronger
redistributive reforms. State’s policy choices have become less
flexible, advocating more concern to propagandise the imperial
values of competition, economic efficiency and individual choice
which revolved around neo-liberal construction. (Rizvi and
Lingard, 2010)
The role of transnational institutions and global policy
actors such as World Bank (WB), World Trade Organisation (WTO)
and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) in inseminating particular conceptualization of
globalization dogma. These transnational institutions are
regarded as conductors for globalizing processes, such as the
2
creation of “an integrated global economy underpinned by the
ideology of market liberalism” (Lingard & Rizvi, 1998, p.271) or
of the extension of privatization into the public sector,
including education (Mok & Tan, 2004, p.23). Nevertheless, some
view their existences create pressures for globalization (Yeates,
2001, p.8). This coheres with Dodds’s argument that,
‘Globalization qua global pressures has generally been
conceptualized as the proliferation of transnational
corporations’. (Dodds, n.d, p. 5)
There are also numbers of case-studies that further
illustrate globalization as a dogma by the global actors. Mok
and Tan advocate that marketisation within higher education was
justified by Singapore government by proposing that marketisation
have direct link with globalizing forces (Mok & Tan, 2004). Mok
also asserts the Chinese government’s use of globalization as a
justification for “higher education restructuring” (Mok, 2005,
p.236); Dingu-Kyrklund proposes that in Sweden, globalization was
a fundamental element in devising policy that promotes change in
the domestic higher education system. On the other hand,
Pritchard mitigates differences in the conceptualizations of 3
globalization by German and British governments as validation for
reform, meanwhile Imam notes that globalization was being used as
‘an ideological justification for neo-imperialist language
policies in Bangladesh’ (Dingu-Kyrklund, 2005, p.125; Pritchard,
2005, p.449-450; Imam, 2005, p.472; Dodds, n.d). Finally, Cussó
and D’Amico proclaim that globalization had led to increasing
acceptance of ‘normative assessment’s of educational systems by
international institutions known as “globalization
comparativism”, as opposed to “development comparatism”, whose
judgments on national education systems were value-free (Cussó &
D’Amico, 2005; Dodds, n. d, p.9-10).
In this globalised economic-based world, capitalisms see the
urgent need to collaborate with national governments in supplying
and maintaining social subjects to provide their services in the
industries as well as the susceptibility of cultural practices
towards its products and services. In this respect, schools and
education system can be seen as a representative or miniature of
the global world. State or the government is to play a key role
in developing public policies that promote the process of global
capital accumulation. In a nutshell, changes in the global 4
economy may affect contemporary political and cultural changes.
The architecture of the changes can be seen as both ‘an
expression of and response to the global economic and cultural
changes’. (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010, p. 28) Therefore, it is fair
to argue that the emergence and the high emphasis on the
centrality of knowledge and educational policies may be seen as
some development initiated by particular agencies with specific
global agenda. (Smart, 1992, p. 48) There is a power relation
playing its role between the global powers and the educational
policy which put a high emphasis on the importance of acquisition
of knowledge. The students and institutions are more closely
articulated with ‘military-industrial’ complex. (Rizvi and
Lingard, 2010)
As educational systems become more global and complex, many
states have resorted to market-based solutions. This witnessed a
notable universal shift to neoliberal thoughts about educational
purposes and governance which put high emphasis on human capital
development and highlight the role of education as a means to
accommodate the needs of the global economy and enhance
competitiveness of national economy. In simplified economic term,5
schools are to be treated more as business and students as
commodities. Meanwhile, higher institutions particularly
universities have the responsibilities to prepare future
knowledge works and young entrepreneurs for the knowledge economy
(Rizvi and Lingard, p. 3; Temple, 2012, p. 173) It seems obscure
that these transnational institutions want to enslave the world
with their own global dogmas. They gave their definition of what
an education is which do not necessarily reflect what an
education really is in reality. Albeit the fact that there are
loud voices stating that this modern globalization had given
individuals more benefit to further socially mobilize through
attaining education.
The national educational policies such as “No Child Left
Behind”, “Race to the Top” and “Education For All” give
appropriate hints of social mobility, progress and moving up the
social ladder to improve one’s social and economic wellbeing.
They carry along their standards of education which highlight on
‘forward motion and competitive advantage; progress and success.’
The US’s President Obama also publicly voice concern over the
6
importance of investing in the Americans youth with the aim to
compete in a global marketplace. Bill Gates, taking on a similar
standpoint, also believes that the United States of America
should be “more competitive as a country” (Berlatsky, 2013)
As aforementioned, globalisation had exerted more pressure
to focus centrally on knowledge because of the intrinsic nature
as a knowledge-based-economy of today’s world, so if one does not
pursue knowledge one is to be left behind which can be seen as an
aspect of negative development of educational policy becoming
more globalised. This has also becoming insignia to many
educational reforms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon
Brown was once quoted that understanding the importance of this
knowledge-economy provides a means to ‘future prosperity of
advanced economies’. (Brown, 2006). The European Commission also
asserts that educational institutions particularly higher
institutions should be able to adapt efficiently to the knowledge
economy. (Temple, 2012, p. 17) This kind of dogma made students
to be judged based on quantitative matter where good grades are
highly desirable and are seen so important. Students should be
7
molded with the passion for seeking knowledge, not solely to meet
up some global standards. This leads us to one fundamental
question, what is the purpose of education or what is the purpose
of our education system. It should be instilled in the minds of
many especially policy makers that the aim of education is to
educate students to have genuine passion for learning and develop
these students into creative, independent and critical thinking
beings who do not conform blindly to certain global standards.
Students, by no means should also not be treated as workers in
the factory assembly line. Perhaps, major educational policies
would benefit in doing further thorough reflections on what
education really is and not to be affected with some global
standards.
Education should not always about exam results because
grades do not merely reflect intelligence. Furthermore,
examination or test results are not everything. This global idea
of defining success and future success by how many As students
get on particular tests may disadvantaged many young, talented,
and gifted people whose true potential could not be mere
8
quantified with numbers and letters. It is noteworthy to take
into account that grades do not measure a person's self-worth and
value to the community. Moreover, the ‘development of human
capital is not necessarily the same as education.’ (Kenny,
Larkin, MacSithigh and Thijssen, 2009, p. 85)
Nevertheless, the pressure of getting good results remain
prevalent in today’s globalised world. This is particularly
evident in Japan and Korea where suicide rate and suicide attempt
is very high in these countries due to their poor performance in
exams. National Police Agency states that the suicides in Japan
‘topped 30,000 for the ninth consecutive year in 2006’ and the
suicide rates among students are increased by 2.9percent from
2005. Meanwhile, the number of elementary school pupils who
committed suicide ‘doubled from seven to 14’. On the other hand,
a notable increase by 22.7 percent and 2.3 percent of death for
middle and senior high school students respectively. In South
Korea, nearly 140 students are reported to have committed suicide
in 2012 which of the total comprised of 88 high school students,
48 middle school students and the remaining three from elementary
school. Depression and exam stress were reported to be the 9
determining factor for these students to kill themselves. OECD
also reported that South Korea championed the suicide rates among
members of OECD, where as Hungary and Japan were ranked second
and third respectively. (The Japan Times, 2007, 2013)
These students felt obligated and pressure rise in order to
fulfill their parents’ aspirations. The students have formal
curriculum during their day and then do their homeworks at night,
coupled with personal curriculum with their private tutors during
weekends. It seems a lot of stress and pressure because they have
this culture that highly emphasise on getting good results during
examination. Their long study hours had to be realised at the
expense of their childhood. Education is always about passing
exams. This mentality eroded many policy makers and affected many
students. Policy makers should acknowledge that learning is an
individualized process and difficult to be standardized. Grades
do not measure intelligence as much as age does not measure
maturity. School should be about making students better human
beings, not solely a docile, productive workforce. After all, an
increase in knowledge ‘does not simply render the social world
10
more transparent, but alters its nature, sinning it off in novel
directions’ (Giddens, 1990, p. 153)
Another global trend in educational policy is the emphasis
on Teacher Training. As much as knowledge is an important
criteria for a good teacher, but being knowledgeable itself does
not guarantee one to be a good teacher. The great care and
affection that the teacher shows to the students may impact
students to be more proactive and interested in the class being
taught. Perhaps this should be the main locus on every teacher
training to shape a more caring teacher to make a conducive and
caring learning environment. They say, ‘Intellectual knowledge
capture people’s mind but behaviours capture people’s hearts”
There are also some teachers even to an extent of lecturers,
based on personal experience, may be really knowledgeable but
failed to properly impart his or her knowledge to the students
and lack of interaction shown between the teachers and the
students.
Nevertheless, Sahlberg argues in his article ‘The PISA 2012
scores show the failure of 'market based' education reform’ in
11
The Guardian, that PISA was not intended to devise simplistic
cross-country comparisons league tables, instead it meant to give
the consumers detailed insights and research into which factors
that have impact on student attainment and otherwise, hence
effective policies may be designed as an alternative solution.
PISA does not point to the weakness of the teachers or students,
neither is it created to compliment or put a nation into
embarrassment for their respective performances in maths,
literacy and science test. Nevertheless, it suggests the
incompetency of the politicians especially the Education Minister
in dealing and bring about the best reform for their nation’s
education system. PISA leagues tables suggest that education is a
key determining factor for a nation’s performance. Another
drawback of establishing PISA as benchmark to national policies
is to be adamant about the highest scoring school systems and
hence overlook the typical pattern that can be derived from the
data. One should acknowledge that high-scoring school system does
not always equate to a successful educational system. Sahlberg
argues that a ‘truly successful education systems’ only when an
education system performs above the OECD average in mathematics,
12
reading literacy and science and ‘when students of all socio-
economic background scoring highly on PISA tests’. He exemplifies
Korea, Japan, Finland, Canada and Estonia as the most successful
education systems in OECD. He concludes that market-based
education reforms are not the best mechanisms to be implemented.
(Sahlberg, 2013)
Globalisation of educational policy observes the increasing
trend of ‘policy borrowing’ among nations. Nevertheless, it is
useful to consider the different cultural ideals associated to
certain countries that may not be applicable to other nations.
Hence, to blindly implement the policy it has and adopt it to
another country may have some detrimental effect on the students
and the education system as a whole. For example, Japan and other
parts of Asia seem to appreciate societal and communal values as
their core cultural values where, as compared to the West that
are synonymous with their concept of individualism. These
cultural ideals are strongly attached and may be hard to
implement to a nation example, conceivably, Western countries
that are not familiar with such certain cultural values might not
produce the same outcomes as what happened in Japan. 13
Simultaneously, globalization also plays a major role impacting
Asian countries with radical impact towards its conflicting
values and culture. We see foreign lecturers coming over to the
country and bringing their idea of what and how teachers should
be. This is another evident of globalization whereas before
preference for local teachers or lecturers were highly demanded.
It was argued that the recruitment of international students,
teachers and lecturers can be coined as the “globalization game”
(Van Vught et al., 2002, p.112).
Policy borrowing may seem to be a desirable concept but to
copy a policy and implement it blindly without thorough research
and development may put a nation in risk. Many structural factors
play important roles and hence need to be considered. Although
Japan and other Asian countries top the league tables but their
level of student satisfaction remains very low. This is
intensifies through the high suicide rate among youth in these
countries due to the pressure and tension of wanting to get good
results to not humiliate the family and themselves. For instance,
education has always been treated with great seriousness by
Japan. In fact they are among those who have the best education 14
system in world with 100 percent literacy rate of the population.
Japan has a ‘strong parental involvement, rigorous testing,
discipline and study in school leading to disciplined workers
competing successfully in the global economy’. In addition, women
were very much confined to the domestic sphere and the role of
child-rear was very centralized to ensure that their children are
following the syllabi in their schoolwork. (Berlatsky, 2013)
Additionally, education policy in globalised world creates
convergence and divergence. And it also creates educational
dystopia. Nevertheless, globalisation only meant to benefit those
of the developed nations. Albeit that educational policy lauds
their initiative to make education as a medium of social
mobility, in this era of globalization, one could witness that
social inequality is growing more and more within nations.
Developing countries may struggle to keep up with those of the
developed nations, and educational opportunities within nations
may benefit more of those in the higher strata of socio-economic
background. Notwithstanding, educational policy is still
increasingly reflecting such global trends because if one wants
to be ahead and attain progress, one has to stick to the global 15
trend; after all, it is the norm of the game. (Brooks, McCormack
and Bhopal, 2013, p. 22)
Nevertheless, another positive development noted with
globalization is that it allows more voice for women to be
represented in the dominant public sphere. Globalisation leads to
the remarkable development of transparent gender equity and
equality system of education, where as in the past, women were
usually to be underrepresented in education institutions.
Education policies that disadvantage women now see more women
gain more rights and equality to access to education. For
instance, in Turkey, due to the increasing pressure to respond to
process of globalization, in 2002, the Turkish Ministry of
National Education has announced their main objective to promote
gender equity and equality in education. This is well
corresponded with the international Education for All (EFA)
campaign initiated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 2009. Now, education of women
is seen as an integral component of Turkey’s modernization.
(Fitzpatrick, Rahman and Esen, 2009, p. 12 -13)
16
Gender equity in education at all levels of education has
been the recent preeminent objective of international
organizations such as the OECD, World Bank and UNESCO
(Unterhalter, 2007) Nevertheless, these three global policy
actors perceive the importance of gender equity as synonymous
with idea of market efficiency. According to World Bank,
‘research has shown that women and girls work harder than men,
are more likely to invest in earning in their children, and are
major producers as well as consumers’. UNESCO presumes:
‘Educating girls yields the highest return in economic terms’.
Last but not least, OECD accentuates on ‘Investing in women with
respect to education, health, family planning, acces to land and
etc.) not only directly reduces poverty, but also leads to higher
productivity and a more efficient use of resources.’
Conclusively, World Bank has the strongest standpoint in
proposing the connotation of gender equity to economic
efficiency. A criticism that can be drawn on the arguments
aforementioned is that they all represent gender biased
statements that all implied role of women on flawed premises.
What they all have in common is that they share the assumptions
17
that ‘women simply as means to certain economic ends’, and
undermined women as capable of socially and culturally mobilizing
themselves in education. (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010, p. 132)
Rising number of Exchange programmes such as European
Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students
(ERASMUS) or Japan-East Asia Network of Exchange for Students and
Youths (JENESYS) is another evident of globalised educational
policy which underpinned the principle of internationalisation.
Globalisation acts as a bridge to know each other well and
better, hence through these programmes they aim to foster
cultural understanding between the host institution and the
exchanged students. Multicultural education policy such as anti-
racist education also brings about similar advantage where it
allows students to enrich their learning environment and promote
their understanding and knowledge of other cultures and
appreciate people of different racial backgrounds. (Ward and
Eden, 2009, p. 137-139)
Nonetheless, globalisation is seen to be slowly amalgamating
different cultures of nations into a global culture, hence making
18
the world we live today like a global village. As Guillen (2011)
argues that globalisation is a ‘process leading to greater
interdependence and mutual awareness (reflexivity) among
economic, political and social units in the world and among
actors in general’ (p. 236) This interconnectedness of nations
through technological advancement was not usually seen in a
positive light, instead it gradually gives rise to the
heterogenising-homogenizing debate, where communities now are
becoming more transnational and becoming even more similar to
each other, which seen as a threat to specific identities.
(Temple, 2012, p. 159) Furthermore, cultural exchange was also
negatively perceived by some as a hint of growing “global
desires”, although they might not be related with national
objectives (Nsamenang, 2005, p.278)
Students’ modules and curriculum are also becoming more
globalised to fit the idea of globalization the emergence of
marketisation of education becoming increasingly common. Science,
Technology, English and Maths (STEM) subjects are regarded highly
which usually less favour the non-science stream students. This
corresponds to the demand of ‘globally mobile labour’ of 19
industries in this knowledge-economy and international labour
market to meet the capitalistic values withhold by global powers.
And as aforementioned, this capitalistic value is being
transmitted in the educational curriculum. Meanwhile, the
ultimate criterion congenital to globalisation as ‘leading to
concentrations of economic and/or linguistic power’ reflects the
rationality of English as a global language or lingua franca.
(Dodds, n.d p.3) And when there is a high tendency to
centralized English language as a lingua franca, this means that
other languages are to be treated as second-class. This
increasing phenomenon that witness English as a global hegemony
may also be a vehicle to encourage economic and cultural division
within and across nations. Nonetheless, higher education and
university need to embrace globalization and cannot ignore the
rest of the world. (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010, p. 168; p. 176-178)
Interestingly, it is observed that higher institutions may
not necessarily be subjects of globalization, but rather also
take active roles in promoting globalization. (Dodds, n.d, p. 3)
Roger King observes that there is this increasing trend taken by
UK government to perceive higher education especially at the 20
university level as the “key” to the ‘maintenance and enhancement
of national comparative advantage in an increasingly economically
competitive world’ in the light of globalization. In fact, many
other nations are also adopting the same trend. This has exerted
pressures of competition among many higher education
institutions. (King, 2003)
As what has been discussed, globalization is a highly
contested notion which is being steered by many global actors,
ideologies and processes. The conceptual intricacy of
globalisation is complimented with both the pros and cons account
for the state, society and individuals as a whole as much as
educational policies are balanced with both positive and negative
development. It is important to highlight that we should also
learn not to focus on the complexity of its unintended outcomes
that globalisation has made, rather that our treatise on the
matter should be willing to approbate to its implications.
(Guillen, 2001, p. 255) Furthermore, today’s globalization
perceive educational progress with high salience as social
mobility and that only means that making a choice to not embrace
globalisation only means to be left behind. And usually that 21
educational attainment and economic power may be correlated.
Because it has always been assumed that to get to the level of
high and good economic power, it reflects a high educational
achievement of one’s nation. Overall, it can be seen one also
needs to consider the role of neoliberalism in shaping
educational dogma. (Guillen, 2001, p. 255)
In conclusion, globalization has had major impacts and
transformations on education policy nationwide, but most
arguments seem to point to the negative development of this
increasing global phenomenon. Firstly, it can be seen that the
globalised policy initiatives put great emphasis on market
efficiency. At the same time, education has become very
significant as a generator of knowledge producer and the
production of human capital to maximize competition within the
global economy. This had made education policy around the world
to be closely associated with fundamental values such as concept
of individualism and economic oriented. The state, international
institutions and transnational organizations have propagandized
this idea of education using a ‘symbolic and magisterial
rhetoric’ that incorporates the idea that neoliberal market 22
policies are the best principles to be adopted and maintained.
The so-called slogan ‘demands of global economy’ became so
ubiquitous to promote the contemporary rationalism behind
implementation of education policy, when in fact is actually
based on the premise of this neoliberal ideas. Neoliberalism has
obviously given advantage to some individuals and communities but
those who are disadvantaged remain struggling to catch up with
the reality created by neoliberal principles. It has undoubtedly
gave access to transnational organizations to acquire
‘unprecedented, and unarguably unregulated amounts of power and
has also reduced collective opposition’. (Rizvi and Lingard,
2010, p. 186; Al’Abri, 20, 2011, p. 500)
Word Count: 3989 words
23
References
Al’Abri, K. (2011) ‘The Impact of Globalization on Education
Policy of Developing Countries: Oman as an Example’, Literacy
Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 2 (4), 491 -502
Alberto, M. (2005) Global Modernisation: Rethinking the Project of Modernity.
London: Sage Publications
Berlatsky, N. (2013) ‘Japan’s Cutthroat School System: A
Cautionary Tale for the U.S.’, The Atlantic, 22 November [Online]
Available at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/japans-
cutthroat-school-system-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-us/281612/
(Accessed: 9 December 2013)
Brown, G (2006) Speech at the launch of the knowledge economy.
The Work Foundation. Available at:
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/research/keconomy/knowledgeecono
my1.aspx
24
Cussó, R. and D’Amico, S. (2005) ‘Development Comparatism to
global comparativism: towards more normative international
education statistics’, Comparative Education, 41(2), 199-216
Dingu-Kyrklund, E. (2005) ‘Migration and Recognition of Diplomas
in Sweden’, European Journal of Education, 40(2), 123-141
Dodds, A (n.d) How does globalization interact with higher education? The
continuing lack of consensus Available at:
http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/16277/1/How_does_globalization_interac
t_with_higher_education.pdf (Accessed: 10 December 2013)
Fitzpatrick, M., Rahman, F., and Esen, H. (2009) Globalisation and
Education Policy in Turkey: Education of Women, religious education and higher
education. [Online] Available at:
http://www.rasit.org/files/globalization_and_education_in_turkey.
pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2013)
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge. Polity
Press
25
Guillen, M. F. (2001) ‘Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive
or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science
Literature’. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235-260
Imam, S. R. (2005) ‘English as a global language and the question
of nation - building education in Bangladesh’, Comparative
Education, 41(4), 471-486
Kenny, A., Larkin, C, MacSithigh, D. and Thijssen, J. (2009) Irish
Education Policy for a Globalised World: A Policy for Chasing Black and White Swans.
Dublin: The Swan Group
King, R. (2003) Globalization and Higher Education. Available at:
www.acu.ac.uk/yearbook/may2003/kingfull.pdf (Accessed: 13
December 2013)
Lingard, R. and Rizvi, F. (1998) Globalization, the OECD, and
Australian Higher Education, in: J. Currie and J. Newson (Eds),
Universities and globalization: Critical perspectives, (London:
Sage), 257-273.
26
Mok, K.-H. (2005) ‘Riding over socialism and global capitalism:
changing education governance and social policy paradigms in
post-Mao China’, Comparative Education, 41(2), 217-240
Mok, K.-H. and Tan, J. (2004) Globalization and marketization in education:
a comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Nsamenang, A. B. (2005) ‘Educational development and knowledge
flow: local and global forces in human development in Africa’,
Higher Education Policy, 18(3), 275-88.
Pritchard, R. (2005) ‘The influence of market force culture on
British and German Academics’, Comparative Education, 41(4), 433-
454.
Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing Education Policy. London:
Routledge
Sahlberg. P. (2013) ‘The PISA 2012 scores show the failure of
'market based' education reform’, The Guardian, 8 December
[Online] Available at
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/08/pisa-
education-test-scores-meaning
27
Shogo, I. (1991) ‘Distinctive Features of Japanese Education‘.
NIER Occasional Paper, National Institute for Educational Research
Smart, B. (1992) Modern Conditions, Postmodern Controversies. London:
Routledge
Temple, P. (2012) Universities in the Knowledge Economy: Higher Education
Organisation and Global Change. London: Routledge
The Japan Times. (2013) S. Korea student suicides hit 139 in ‘12. Available
at: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/20/asia-pacific/s-
korea-student-suicides-hit-139-in-12/#.UquIBdJdXHQ (Accessed: 10
December 2013)
The Japan Times. (2007) Worst student suicide rate yet. Available at:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2007/06/15/editorials/worst-
student-suicide-rate-yet/#.UquH79JdXHQ (Accessed: 10 December
2013)
UNESCO. (2009). “10 Things You Need to Know about EFA.” UNESCO.
Available at: http://www.unesco.org/en/efa-international-
coordination/the-efa-movement/10-things-to-know-about-efa/
(Accessed: 12 December 2013)
28
Unterhalter, E. (2007) Gender, Schooling and Global Social Justice, London:
Routledge
Van Vught, F., Van der Wende, M., Westerheijden, D. (2002)
Globalization and internationalization: Policy agendas compared,
in: J. Enders and O. Fulton (Eds), Higher Education in a globalizing world:
international trends and mutual observations; a Festschrift in honour of Ulrich
Teichler. London: Kluwer Academic
Ward, S and Eden, C. (2009) Key Issues in Education Policy. London: Sage
Yeates, N. (2001) Globalization and social policy. London: Sage
29