Part V: Education Policy

Present Trends in Public Secondary Education in Western Europe
Education, Credentialling, and the Labor Market in the European Community: An Agenda for Research
The Study of Education as a Pariority
'Goodbye, Mr. Chips': A Proposal for the Abolition of the Lifetime Classroom Teacher
Academia in Anarchy
Private Education
OECD Reviews of Educational Policy
Education for Development
The Utility of Country Case Studies for Educational Planning
Educational Financing and Policy Goals

Source: Harold J. Noah, "The OECD Review
and Higher Education,"  Canadian Journal of
Higher Education 9 (1979): 5-12.  Reprinted
by permission of the journal.

OECD REVIEWS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

I propose to examine the OECD reviews of national policies for education under eight headings: Some background on OECD as an organization, and some history of the programme of educational policy reviews. The five elements of a review. Who does the reviewing? Who wants to get what from the reviews? Who and what gets examined? Preparing for the review. Results of the reviews. Prospects for the review programme.

While I will do this with reference to all the reviews that have taken place so far, I'll be making particular reference to the German, Austrian and Canadian reviews, in which I had a direct role as examiner, and for two of which I acted as rapporteur.

General and historical background

One valued feature of comparative inquiry into educational phenomena is the opportunity to bring at least a fresh, and perhaps a more objective, perspective to bear on the educational affairs of another country. Recall that Marc-Antoine Jullien de Paris as far back as the second decade of the nineteenth century proposed that each European nation be required to supply answers to a lengthy annual questionnaire on its educational establishment. As the questions he suggested were many of them rather pointed, Jullien hoped that a proper sense of pride (and shame) would stimulate each nation to ever greater educational efforts. At least, the laggards would be exposed to international disapproval, and more progressively inclined nations could learn from the good example of others.

Jullien's notion of nations undertaking systematic, regular, self-administered examinations of their educational systems was ignored for the whole of the nineteenth century, but has been partially carried forward in this century by the work of the International Bureau of Education, Geneva, and by UNESCO. Examinations of member countries by the OECD are another strand in the process of international examination of educational policies.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is an international body with its headquarters in Paris. Its present membership of 25 countries includes the governments of Western Europe, Turkey and Yugoslavia, the United States and Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. OECD had its origins in the consortium of countries that came together under the post-Second World War Marshall Plan. Originally named the OEEC (Organization for European Economic Co-operation), the name was changed to the non-regional appellation OECD in 1960. OECD's activities in industrial and agricultural policies, the commercial and monetary fields, education and science, and social policy are by now well developed.

The OECD seeks to be a locus for intergovernmental discussion, collaboration and co-ordination. In these activities, OECD is acting in much the same way as the more familiar UN agencies, ILO, WHO, UNESCO and so on. However, the OECD is unlike these UN agencies with respect to one thing it does not do, and one thing it does do. The OECD does not seek to incorporate non-governmental institutions or representation into its work, and it does conduct regular reviews of the economic (and lately) of the educational policies of member countries.

OECD economic policy reviews were established in the early 1950s. They are conducted by members of the OECD secretariat and attract considerable attention, as authoritative judgments about the means used by countries to achieve their stated economic and financial goals and the degree of success in attaining them.

OECD reviews of member countries' educational policy goals commenced somewhat later, but are already beginning to be seen as a series of considered evaluations of an important area of each government's social and administrative effort. While the OECD secretariat organizes and co-ordinates the educational policy reviews (in co-operation with officials of the host country), it does not undertake the review itself. This is done by a group of between three and six so-called examiners, appointed ad hoc by the OECD for a particular country review, with the approval of the government concerned. However, it would be fair to say that the educational policy reviews have not, as yet, attained the regularity, sustained achievement, and publicity achieved by the economic policy reviews, though, given time, this will perhaps develop.

The review process grew out of the OECD Conference on Economic Growth and Investment, held in Washington, D.C. in 1961. One conclusion of that Conference was that there should be regular national surveys of educational policies in member countries. The emphasis of the Conference, and of the proposal for reviews, was upon the manpower implications of educational policy and at least the first review, that of Ireland, was conducted in that spirit. In fact, the series of reviews began by being piggybacked on a threeyear survey of education in Ireland, undertaken 1962-65, and published as an Irish government document, entitled Investment in Education. A team of OECD examiners visited Ireland for a week in June 1966, using this document as their background report. In October 1966 a so-called confrontation meeting was held in Paris at the OECD between the examiners and the Irish educational and political authorities, in the presence of the relevant OECD multi-government committee. The examiners' report and the proceedings of the confrontation meeting were then published by OECD. Thus was the pattern established that was used, with minor modification only, for subsequent reviews: a background report prepared by the country; an on-site examination and report by external assessors; an agenda of questions for discussion at a confrontation meeting; and a series of publications to conclude the process of review.

Sweden, Italy, Austria, France, Japan, the Netherlands, United States (educational research policy), Germany, England and Wales, Austria again (higher education), Norway, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands (again), and Austria (school policy) have since followed. Aspects of United States educational policy will be reviewed shortly (educational policies for the disadvantaged), and Yugoslavia, Sweden, and New Zealand are on the future schedule.

The five elements of a review

As I have mentioned, a complete country review has at least five important documentary stages:

1. A report, prepared by the educational authorities of the country under review. This document is usually known as a "background document." I will have something more to say about it later. For the moment suffice it to say that the background document provides examiners with a description of the relevant parts of the country's educational system, a statement of policy goals as seen by the country's authorities, and some reference at least to the major policy problems under discussion within the country. The background document is, in a sense, the examiners' primary source document for their review.
   

2. In a number of countries, and especially in Canada, a series of special research reports are prepared during the course of the writing of the background report. These are normally made available to the examiners, at their request, but are not intended for eventual publication as part of the OECD report. Other papers that are available to the examiners may come from special interest groups -- particularly from teachers and school board associations, and from university groups.
   

3. After spending a period of time in the country, which may be as short as three to four days or as long as a month, the examiners produce their report on what they have seen and heard together with a list of questions which they wish to have discussed with the representatives of the country's educational authorities.
   

4. The examiners' report and the list of questions form the agenda for a session of the Education Committee of the OECD in Paris. Representatives from all of the OECD member countries are present and one or two whole days of discussion are devoted to the so-called "confrontation meeting." During the course of discussion based on the examiners' questions, it is expected that representatives from the other member countries will intervene, and over the years such interventions have become more and more the rule. In that sense, the confrontation meeting in Paris becomes a type of multi-national seminar on the problems of educational policy experienced by all the member countries, but with particular reference to the issues raised by the experience of the country under examination.
   

5. In at most a year from the date of the confrontation meeting, there will appear from the OECD a publication which includes the background report, or a summary thereof, the full text of the examiners' report and the questions they have raised for discussion, plus a summary of the discussion held at the confrontation meeting. From the point of view of the OECD, this publication marks the end of the country review process. Of course, this is by no means the end of the matter for the country concerned. Most often, a vigorous public discussion ensues at home that often continues for a number of years.
   

Who are the examiners?

The team of examiners consists of a minimum of three and a maximum of six persons, accompanied by an official from the OECD secretariat. Many of the examiners are university professors, especially those who have had some hand in the discussion and setting of educational policy in their own countries. In addition, examiners are drawn from the ranks of ex-ministers or deputy ministers of education, members of legislative committees concerned with education, and administrators (that is, civil servants) who have dealt with education at one stage or another of their careers.

Each team usually has an individual who has been on the receiving end of the examination in his own country. In addition, because of the number of reviews that have now taken place, the examining teams tend to include a rather large proportion of examiners who have taken part in examinations before.

As befits an international organization, the OECD attempts to achieve a good spread of examiners in terms of nationality. In no circumstances, may an examiner be a national of the country under examination. In Canada, for example, the examining team consisted of a Frenchman, a Belgian, a German, a Norwegian, and an Englishman, together with the requisite official of the OECD. One of the examiners, usually the member with the most diplomatic experience, is designated chairman, to make the formal speeches of introduction, and so forth. There is also a rapporteur (usually, though not always, not the same person as the chairman), who is responsible for coordinating the writing of the examiners' report. In the development of the work of the examiners, there is a great deal of collegial consultation, discussion, and group definition of outlines of the questions and conclusions. The schedule of interviews, and the itinerary within the country, usually provides for the examiners to stay together as a group for most of the time, so that there is a chance for an examiners' group consensus to emerge on important issues that must be dealt with in the examiners' report. However, a certain division of labour among the examiners also occurs, so that individual examiners tend to specialize in one or another aspect of education policy.

During the course of the country visit, and for a day or two at the end of the visit, the examiners engage in intensive periods of discussion and writing, in order that by the time they disperse, the rapporteur will have in hand a clear outline of basic arguments to be made in the final draft of the examiners' report.

In the intervening period between the end of the examiners' visit and the confrontation meeting in Paris, a three-way process of discussion of the draft examiners' report ensues among the examiners, the country authorities and the OECD secretariat. The goal now is to ensure that the final draft is free of errors of fact and gross misinterpretations of evidence that has been presented to the examiners. In addition, gaps in documentation and statistics are remedied as far as possible at this stage. My own experience demonstrates conclusively, I believe, that in no way is there censorship exercised on the examiners by either the country under review or the OECD secretariat. This is not to say that suggestions are not made for change in this or that aspect of the examiners' drafts, but the examiners are, in the final instance, free to render their own judgment in their own words.

Who wants to get what from the reviews?

It is, I believe, important to recognize that the reviews of country educational policies do not occur in a political vacuum. They are the result of a specific agreement between the authorities of the country concerned and the OECD secretariat, and are intended to serve a variety of interests.

The OECD secretariat has at least five interests in the review process. There is first the desire to have knowledge of the member country's experience, potentials, and problems in education shared as widely as possible internationally. On the basis of the review work, the secretariat hopes, too, to build an ever-increasing spirit of international co-operation. Third, such work helps to cement further the particular elements of international cooperation that are represented by the OECD itself. Fourth, any particular review is looked upon as an opportunity to improve the educational review process in general. It is hoped that practice makes perfect here as elsewhere. Last, the content of a review helps to test the validity of generally agreed OECD policies in educational affairs against experience of the member countries. This has led to the considerable enrichment and modification of OECD educational policies over the years.

A country accepting a review also has a number of interests in mind. There is stimulus provided to self-examination. Certainly that was a most important interest of the educational authorities of Canada, and the background documentation in Canada was the outcome of a coordinated effort among and between the provincial and federal authorities that represented a "first" for Canada. Second, the review does provide a good platform from which a country can hope to inform the governments of many other countries concerning its achievements in the field of education, and its ambitions for the future. There is also an important plus in the opportunity to receive an external, and it is hoped objective, critique of the conduct of educational affairs that will be of value internally in the future construction of policy. Last, and this has often been of decisive importance for the timing of particular reviews, country authorities believe that a review and the surrounding publicity will help to mobilize support for a desired programme of innovation and change. There were strong elements of this motivation for the timing of the reviews that have taken place in Germany, Austria and Australia.

The examiners' interests tend to be somewhat more personal than the foregoing. Invariably, they have a vivid interest in learning more about the country they are visiting, and the process of visits and discussions makes for what amounts to a travelling seminar for the examiners. Many of them tend to be interested in the comparative study of educational phenomena and are eager to test in practice the validity of Jullien de Paris' notion that international examination can help improve national educational policies.

In any case, there is an intrinsic attraction in the opportunity given the examiners to hold up a mirror, reflecting back to the country an image of its educational system as seen through the eyes of the examiners. The mirror is, no doubt, a distorting lens to some degree. Indeed, I would argue, it should not be a perfect mirror, merely giving back what was shown to it. There exists a strong, and properly strong, tension between the problems and "facts" as the representatives of a country see them and the way those same phenomena are viewed and evaluated by the examiners. It is precisely from these often unexpected, and not always welcome, reflections that the contribution of an examination will emerge, if it is to emerge at all.

Who and what undergoes these examinations?

I noted already that some twelve nations have had reviews of their policies for education, some more than once. The OECD does not force itself upon a country. Rather, it is a matter of a member country finding it convenient or useful to request that a review be undertaken at a particular year.

Within each country, it is largely official governmental policies and the administrative and institutional apparatus for regular, formal education that is examined. In most countries relatively little engagement from the non-formal, non-public, and non-governmental sectors of education is sought, or achieved. The explanation for this is to be found in the emphasis upon official, governmental relationships which is the hallmark of the OECD.

An explanation is not, of course, a justification. Country examinations are regularly criticized for giving insufficient attention to the non-governmental sectors. In Canada, the so-called "interest groups" (representing teachers, school trustees, associations dealing with education of exceptional children, and so forth) were extremely critical of what they conceived to be a one-sided process of review. In Germany, too, there was little indication that the work of teachers' associations was considered worth devoting time to, so that whatever success the examiners had in meeting with representatives of teachers' associations was the result of ad hoc and informal arrangements. The review procedure in England and Wales formed a somewhat surprising set of arrangements. The examiners there met with Ministry officials only, and this caused something of a stir. In Austria, although the examiners did indeed meet with representatives of employers and trade union associations, they did so only in the presence of the officials responsible for education. However, the final judgment must be that, given the constraints on the time available, most countries do manage to have the examiners meet rather freely with an extraordinarily wide range of representative interest groups and individuals.

Preparing for the review

Some candidates for an examination are able to prepare for the Big Day methodically and in good time; others stay up all night, cramming together whatever they can in a helterskelter rush. So it is with country examinations.

The background reports for Canada and for Austria, to give just two examples, were assembled in the most thorough and painstaking way. They provided the examiners with comprehensive surveys of the educational systems and their operation. The background reports from some other countries have not been so thoroughly prepared (for example, in Germany), and they were in consequence of less use to the examiners.

The tasks facing a country preparing for an examination are basically threefold. It is necessary first to identify for examination a set of institutions, issues, policies, and plans. Some countries have taken a wide definition of their educational system for examination, including as much as possible in the survey. The reviews in France, Sweden, Germany and Canada were of this all-inclusive variety. In Austria and the United States segments of the educational system were identified, and there seems to be an increasing preference by countries and the OECD secretariat to structure reviews more narrowly within specified sectors of the educational system. This stage of preliminary definition and discussion can take upwards of a year. In Canada it took about four years to get from the initial idea of a review to the end of the process of definition of the structure.

The second and main stage of preparation is the work on the background report, which must summarize the system of education, describe its objectives and modes of policy making, and estimate the success and shortcomings of the system with respect to the stated objectives. Finally, in consultation with the OECD secretariat, the country authorities must establish a schedule of visits, discussions, mini-conferences, and appointments for the examiners, to occupy between a week and a month of full-time examiners'work.

In general, country authorities tended to be over-optimistic about the lead time that is necessary to get arrangements in final shape for an examination. Partly this is the result of delay that is inevitably associated with diplomatic protocol, but there is also a tendency to underestimate the complexities of the background report and the schedule of examiners' appointments. Both are fraught with potential political aspects. As the process of preparation for the review comes toward its end, more and more offices and non-official groups come to realize that a quite significant event is about to take place, and demand that they be granted some piece of the action, or some access to the background report before it is finally submitted. It is not therefore unusual to find that the date for the beginning of an examiners' visit is postponed, sometimes more than once.

Results of reviews

As a result of an educational policy review, the visibility of educational policy both nationally and internationally is quite definitely increased.

The immediate result takes the form of assessing "how we did" in an international scrutiny. Any and all elements of praise for the country and its educational system are, of course, seized upon with alacrity, and repeated in the press with many references to the examiners' objectivity and sagacity. At the same time, there is a marked tendency to rebut points of criticism (real or imagined) while underlining the ignorance of the examiners, stemming either from their lack of time or opportunity to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with conditions in the country, or from their sheer innate obtuseness. Such immediate reactions, while they generate a good deal of temporary heat, are not the most important.

In assessing the longer term effects of a country review, it is necessary to recognize that any given review cannot and should not be understood simply in terms of a single country report. The programme of reviews is essentially a serial process, in which there is a gradual accretion of a body of international audits, judgments, and identifications of trends of policy. Hence, the context in which a given country review takes place is extremely significant for understanding why the examiners have concentrated on this or that aspect of the educational system, or emphasized this or that approach to educational policy.

Thus, policy reviews have tended to concentrate on a fairly limited range of issues: equality of educational opportunity (both as a goal and in terms of actual achievement); curriculum structures (especially the fit between schooling and work); the aptness of government and school governance structures; the role, influence, skills, and training of teachers; policies and practices for the education of certain special groups of children (linguistic, ethnic, socially disadvantaged, learning disabled and so forth); and the fiscal implications of educational policy.

These particular perspectives arise from the major policy concerns of the OECD as an organization. The politicians and administrators who attend OECD meetings, and all who read OECD documents regularly, thus accumulate gradually a body of case-study and comparative information that helps them to set their own, more intimately known problems and achievements in a wider context of understanding.

Within the given country, ideas and judgments that at first shock and seem unpalatable often become assimilable in time. In Germany in particular, there was great resistance to the ideas in the examiners' report, especially in relationship to the overloaded curriculum, hours of schooling, and the tight relationship between particular educational qualifications and specific occupations. But over the years there has developed increasing willingness within Germany to consider ways in which some of the areas of examiners' criticism might be dealt with.

Prospects for the review programme

The future of the review programme must depend upon the continuing support for it provided by the OECD member countries. In a sense, they are continually gauging what the review programme costs them in time, money and energies deflected from other worthwhile enterprises versus what they judge they are deriving in terms of benefits. Regarded from this point of view, the prospects for the review programme seem to be good. One gets the impression that, although the immediate governmental reaction to a review is "never again," the disenchantment does not last long. One may suppose, moreover, that there is a certain automatic momentum built into the review programme. Having jumped across the review hurdles itself, a country may be quite enthusiastic about other countries doing the same.

There are certainly arguments for tightening up and tidying up some aspects of the review process. Some suggestions that have been frequently made point toward making much clearer and more specific the particular areas, topics and aspects of education to be reviewed. Also, it is claimed that the examiners could well use better briefing of the country that they are to visit, and that the nature of the examiners' reports should be less value-laden and more objective and "scientific." And hopes are continually expressed that the entire review process might be held to tighter time schedules than has usually been possible.

There may indeed be much of value in these, and other, suggestions. I would merely warn against trying to go too far in the direction of routinizing and bureaucratizing the review procedures. It is, I think, worth emphasizing that the review process is essentially a set of acts of "discovery" - often self-discovery by the country concerned, and creative discovery by the examiners and the Education Committee of the OECD in Paris. It is fashionable nowadays to ask of every investment of public funds "What will the product be?" With respect to the reviews of educational policy, it might be useful to tolerate a certain amount of untidiness, in return for many of the benefits flowing from this unusual international exercise.

The process of reviews helps to build an international community in a way that is positive, practical, and non-threatening. Nations go about their educational business in their own manner, according to their best lights. Their sovereignty in education is in no way impaired, but through the reviews they demonstrate their willingness to "pay a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," as Thomas Jefferson put it on another occasion. In that spirit the reviews of educational policy have deserved and earned attention and support.