“Policy Experiments” as a new EU policy tool in teacher recruitment and training

Author(s):

Stefanie Morgenroth(presenting / submitting)Eva Anderson-Park(presenting)Hermann Josef Abs

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

28. Sociologies of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

28 SES 04, Data and Policies in the Fabrication of the European Space of Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-B101

Chair:

Paolo Landri

Contribution

The overall objective of the strategy "Europe 2020" by the European Council is to create a coherent European space of education. Within the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training, new policies have been developed to increase the comparability of professional qualifications for teachers not only in terms of formal regulations, but also in terms of achieved competences (Steger, 2014).

One characteristic policy tool in this context has been the "Open Method of Coordination" (OMC). OMC was introduced because the European Union has no legislative mandate in education politics. However, the last few years have shown the limited efficiency of OMC characterized by the lack of commitment of national policy makers and a lack of development of productive solutions within member states (Keating, 2014; Abs & Werth, 2013; Souto-Otero, Fleckenstein & Dacombe, 2008).

Traditional EU mobility programmes (e.g. Comenius, Erasmus) constituted a second widely used policy tool. These programmes strived for “mutual learning” and the exchange of “best practice”. However, this approach proved to be limited also due to (1) the difficulties in identifying best practice in a reliable way, (2) the limits of transferability of practices from one context to the other, and (3) the lack of sustainable policies for scaling (Centre International d’études pédagogiques [CIEP], 2012).

The integration and reform of various programmes under the new umbrella of “Erasmus+” in 2014 led to the development of new policy tools in order to be more effective regarding the established objectives (European Commission, 2016a). The topical presentation focuses on one of these tools: Through the “Erasmus+ Key Action 3 on Policy Reform” the tool of "policy experiments" was established. Main focus of this strategy is first the quality assurance of newly introduced practices. Quality in this context is understood as empirical evidence for the potential of a practice to solve a problem in the field of education and training in more than one member state. A second main focus of “policy experiments” consists in the preparation for scaling both by stakeholder involvement from the very beginning of the experiment and by the standardised description of products and services.

In order to fulfil these claims, specific regulations for the implementation of policy experiments have been defined (European Commission, 2016b): Not only scientists, the European Commission or Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), but first and foremost national educational authorities need to be involved for identifying a practice or measure that has already undergone some evaluation. Civic partnerships, i.e. partnerships of public authorities with NGOs are considered helpful in breaking up fixed structures and developing new solutions for existing problems. The consensus of stakeholders from different sectors of society on the policy measure is expected to support the later willingness for scaled implementation after there is evidence for the effectiveness of the experiment.

From a methodological point of view, “experimental” or “quasi-experimental” research designs are set as standard. In this process, hypotheses will be tested by a longitudinal comparison between intervention and control groups instead of observational or survey studies.

Given these multifaceted demands of the new policy tool, the following question becomes central: How do “policy experiments” change under the conditions of implementation in realistic contexts? In order to be more specific on this question the presentation will analyse one Erasmus+ Key Action 3 project, namely “A New Way for New Talents in Teaching” (NEWTT) and look into how straight the Erasmus+ concept could be applied to the set-up of the project and to the design of the impact evaluation. We are interested in identifying limits and potential side-effects of the new policy tool for project implementation.

Method

NEWTT is a project on the alternative recruitment, and short term competence acquisition in the area of school teaching. The project tests an alternative pathway into teaching in five countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania and the Basque Region of Spain). The alternatively recruited and trained participants constitute the intervention groups in each country and will be compared to beginning teachers trained in traditional teacher preparation programs (control groups in each country). NGOs from the education sector will be primarily responsible for implementing the field trials. In NEWTT this is the function of Teach for All organisations in the five countries, which can be described as semi-independent branches form the international us-based Teach for All, (c.f. Teach for all, 2016). The public authorities in these countries were selected for inclusion in NEWTT because their governments are concerned with current or expected teacher shortages in general and especially in schools serving underprivileged communities, while also recognizing the varying quality of teacher training within their education systems. The scientific evaluation of the quasi-experiment will be conducted externally by a specialized unit of the University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). The policy experiment follows a quasi-experimental design. Quasi-experimental designs take the non-random distribution of participants in the intervention and control groups into account. The design of the experiment can be further characterized as trans-national panel design, in so far as the main components for the evaluation measures will be developed identically for the five countries. Adaptations for intervention and control groups will be made on the international level and national adaptions will be allowed only in select cases (e.g. alignment of ISCED Levels with national school systems). The questionnaires will be presented to participants in five different languages (according to their countries’ native language). An online survey platform will be established for all data collection stages. The results will be published using Open Licenses.

Expected Outcomes

On an administrative level NEWTT can be described as an example for a new generation of stronger tools for the Europeanisation of educational politics (Lawn & Grek, 2012). Clearly, Key Action 3 on policy reform addresses some weak points of the “Open Method of Coordination” and the traditional mobility programmes. But from the perspectives of comparative education research and policy analysis, the question emerges in how far the new tool of international policy experiments indeed produces transferable approaches and high commitment of the participating countries? Further, we have to be more precise under which conditions the collaboration between on the one hand NGOs that work on small scale and on the other hand established structures that used to work on large scale can shape together a scalable system of teacher recruitment and training and whether evidence or other political needs will prevail in that process. With regards to content, we have to debate the potential consequences following from the fact that the American Teach for All approach to teacher recruitment and training constitutes the basis for an explicitly European project like NEWTT. The Teach for All approach can be considered a “traveling policy” between various European and non-European countries. To what degree is this alternative pathway into teaching used by countries as borrowed policy with little national modifications or as basic structure with adapted national or European training curricula and standards? The answers to these questions will be crucial to discuss in how far NGOs, national ministries, collaboration between EU-member states, and/or international organisations shape the emerging Europeanised teacher education of the future and what role the European Commission and their policy making can play in this.

References

Abs, H. J. & Werth, S. (2013). Policy Approaches to Quality of Citizenship Education by European Intergovernmental Organisations. In: Hedtke, Reinhold; Zimenkova, Tatjana (Eds.). Education for Civic and Political Participation. A Critical Approach. London (Routledge). 81-98. Centre International d’études pédagogiques [CIEP] (2012). Study of the impact of Comenius school partnerships on participating schools Institutional changes and the European dimension. Executive Summary. Commissioned by the European Commission. Online: http://arhiva.mobilnost.hr/prilozi/05_1355304110_PA_impact_study.pdf [12/01/2016]. European Commission (2016a). Erasmus+. The EU programme for education, training, youth and sport. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/ [12/01/2016]. European Commission (2016b). Erasmus+. Programme Guide. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/documents/erasmus-plus-programme-guide_en.pdf [12/01/2016]. Keating, A. (2014). Education for Citizenship in Europe. European Policies, National Adaptations and Young People's Attitudes. Palgrave. Lawn, M. & Grek, S. (Eds.) (2012). Europeanizing Education. Governing a new policy space. Oxford (Symposium books). Souto-Otero, M., Fleckenstein, T. & Dacombe, R. (2008). Filling in the gaps: European governance, the open method of coordination and the European Commission. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 231-249. Stéger, C. (2014). Review and Analysis of EU Teacher-related Policies and Activities. European Journal of Education. 49(3), 332-347. Teach for all (2016). The Global Network for Expanding Educational Opportunity. Online: http://teachforall.org/en [12/01/2016].

Author Information

Stefanie Morgenroth (presenting / submitting)

University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Eva Anderson-Park (presenting)

University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Hermann Josef Abs

University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for