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