This research intends to analyse the trend of importing and exporting education as a new phenomenon of policy transfer. Comparative education study has been using the concept of ‘policy transfer’ and ‘educational lending and borrowing’ (Orchs & Phillipps, 2014). Though ‘education export’ is a new concept that focuses on the lending side, it is considered relatively fair or involves agreement. According to Auld and Morris’ (2014) discussion about the ‘New Paradigm’’, comparative education faces the remarkable metamorphosis of its object. With the diffusion of practice on importing and exporting other countries’ education, originality of each country’s education (especially ‘compulsory education’ at primary and part of the secondary level) is being questioned. After all, originality is the core asset when one country tries to appeal its speciality of exporting goods.

In this context, international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) are often criticised for promoting globalisation. Meyer and Benavot (2013), for example, pointed out that OECD and PISA create ‘isomorphism’ (uniformity) in education policy globally. In parallel with globalisation, a strong focus on nation-states is also on the rise. We see that PISA and TIMSS emphasise ‘national’ education. With the focus on PISA, national assessments often analyse data of a group of nation. Thus, ‘national’ education is emphasised. Comparative education studies traditionally compare countries by the motivation of improving their own country’s education system. Hence, the global and the national come together. In this aspect of globalisation, PISA and other similar standardised assessments have emerged as the Global Education Policy Market.

The trend of education export is booming in many countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that international education export reached a record-high of AUS$ 18.1 billion (US$ 13.14 billion) for the 2014-15 fiscal year (ICEF Monitor, 2015-08-12). Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) also joined this new market in April 2017 (Nikkei Asian Review, 2015-09-21). My previous research shows that exporting countries are wealthy nations with high PISA scores, and importing countries are relatively poor in terms of both students’ performance and economy. This asymmetric relationship and unbalanced power structure is called ‘Educational Hegemony’ in a previous study (Hayashi 2016).

This presentation aims to show the perspective of both, the importing and exporting countries on the identity (ethnie) of national education. In addition to the previous research work on the exporting sector, I conducted a series of interviews in the importing countries, Export Education Finland, Edu-port project founder of the Japanese Ministry of Education, EduCare Ltd., Singapore, Singapore Teachers’ Union, and Lesson Study promoters in Philippines. I also intend to conduct interviews at Omega schools in Ghana in July. This presentation shows the latest ‘fresh’ data collected from these interviews to contribute to the further understanding of this new paradigm.

This study employs the theoretical framework of comparative studies, typically the one developed by Bray and Thomas (1995), discussions of Auld and Morris, Schatz (2016), Spring (2010), and many other literary works of Lingard and Steiner-Khamsi. The evidences and sources of the analysis are mainly from the literature (including articles on web), policy documents, and interviews. To accomplish this research, some interviews have been held at various national education ministries and policy research institutes: ACER (Australia), MEXT and NIER (Japan), Cito (Netherlands), NIE (Singapore), Skolverket (Sweden), Export Education Finland, Future Learning (Finland), EduCluster (Finland), EduCare Ltd (Singapore), Singapore Teachers’ Union and Lesson Study promoters in Philippine. Also, I intend to conduct interviews at Omega schools in Ghana in July.

This study expects to fulfil the following aims. 1) To identify common characteristics of the phenomenon of importing and exporting education through comparison of practicing countries. Unlike previous concepts used in comparative studies, such as policy transfer or educational lending and borrowing, the idea of education export has the potential to help sharpen the identity of national education, as a result of specialisation. 2) To contribute to the understanding of the mechanism of ‘New Paradigm’ and to analyse the global education policy market. Education export is a paradoxical idea in its combination of global and national elements. Large-scale international assessment and a global education market lead to isomorphism and specialisation of educational policy and systems. These are challenging new phenomena for comparative study. Such specialisation and the consequently increased awareness of ethnie may foster conflict between export-led thinking and nation-specific ideas on education. 3) To investigate the possibility of conflict and integration of economic and educational values through the interviews of both importing and exporting actors.

1)Ball S.J. (2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary, Routledge. 2)Bray M. & Thomas R. M. (1995) Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 472-90. 3)Green A. (1997) Education, Globalization and the Nation State, Palgrave Macmillan. 4)The Guardian, “OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide—academics”, 6 May 2014. 5)Hayashi K. (2016) Formation of “Educational Hegemony” on Global Education Policy Market: An Analysis of Four National Education Research Institutes’ outward strategy, Bulletin of the JEAS, Vol. 42. 6)ICEF Monitor, Australian education exports reach AUS$18 billion in 2014/15, 12 Aug 2015, retrieved 19 Aug 2016, http://monitor.icef.com/2015/08/australian-education-exports-reach-aus18-billion-in-201415. 7)Martin M., Mullis I.V.S., Foy P. Stanco G.M. (2012) TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; Lynch School of Education, Boston College; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 8)Mullis I.V.S., Martin M.O., Foy P., Arora A. (2012) TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; Lynch School of Education, Boston College; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 9)Schatz M. (2016) Education as Finland’s Hottest Export? A Multi-Faceted Case Study on Finnish National Education Export Policies, University of Helsinki Faculty of Behavioral Sciences Research Report of the Department of Teacher Education, 289. 10)Shields R. (2015) Measurement and Isomorphism in International Education, Hayden M., Levy J. Thompson J. J. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications, pp. 477-487. 11)Smith A.D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Basil Blackwell. 12)Spring J. (2010) Globalization of Education, An Introduction, Routledge. 13)Ricardo D. (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, John Murray. 14)World Trade Organization (2016) Statistics Database—Time Series, Trade in commercial services, 2005-onwards (BPM6), retrieved 19 Aug 2016, http://stat.wto.org/.