One of the most significant shifts entailed by the SDG4 agenda is its focus on learning outcomes – a transformation sometimes referred to as the quality turn. As a consequence, large-scale assessments (LSAs) feature prominently within the SDG4 monitoring mechanism as key data sources informing learning metrics (Sachs-Israel, 2017). The new indicator framework is unambiguous on the need for countries to adopt or participate in some form of LSA so that student achievement can be reported on an internationally comparable scale. The quantification needs brought about by the new agenda have tended to reinforce relations of political, symbolical and technical interdependence among a variety of stakeholders involved in the conduction of LSAs - including regional and global assessment consortia and international organizations, but also national evaluation agencies and research institutes, inter alia. So far, the links and relationships between these actors have received limited attention. While a mounting corpus of research explores the role of some of the major players in the realm of cross-national assessment, the connections among these and other stakeholders have been less frequently addressed. This paper inquires into the effects of SDG4 on the institutional agendas and the relationships between the different organizations involved in the conduction of large-scale assessments. These questions are explored on the light of the theoretical toolbox put forward by recent scholarship on transnational fields (Buchholz, 2016; Go, 2008). Thus, four main dimensions of analysis are considered, namely: the development of common norms and beliefs; the articulation of an institutionalized infrastructure; the emergence of principles of hierarchization; and the development of contending approaches and fault-lines. Methodologically speaking, the paper builds on the combination of three methods - namely, a documentary analysis of technical reports and policy briefs; 41 semi-structured interviews with key informants and representatives of these organizations; and the observation of two UNESCO-convened meetings oriented at animating debate and coordination among concerned agencies.  The results of the research suggest that, while the new UN education agenda has decisively contributed to the emergence of growing levels of interdependence among concerned organizations, the boundaries and organizing principles of the field are subject to significant contestation. The fact that no agency enjoys a hegemonic position, and the opening-up of the field to a wider range of stakeholders, leave the space open to competitive dynamics that tend to compromise its autonomy.

Buchholz, L. (2016). What is a Global Field? Rethinking Bourdieu’s Field Theory beyond the Nation-State. The Sociological Review, 64(2), 31-60. Go, J., (2008), ‘Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires’, Sociological Theory, 26 (3): 201–229. Sachs –Israel, M. (2017). The SDG4-Education 2030 Agenda And Its Framework For Action – The Process Of Its Development And First Steps In Taking It Forward. Bildung und Erziehung, 69(3), 269-290.