National curriculum policy in Norway and Brazil
Translations of the global accountability logic
Keywords:institutional logics framework, accountability, national curriculum policy, comparison
This paper addressed in what ways national curriculum policy in Norway and Brazil adopted the global accountability logic of which OECD and other international organizations are proponents. It borrowed from an institutional logics perspective to explain the complexity found within the accountability logic across these two nation-states. The method used was thematic analysis of the national curriculum policy. The findings revealed that national curriculum policy is informed by the international context, but translated within national contexts. Norway elaborated the accountability logic to encompass multiple aspects of this logic that reinforced each other to create a cohesive policy. In Brazil, tensions between different social groups resulted in a curriculum policy with contradictory aspects of the accountability logic. The translations of the global accountability logic reflected the context-specific features of each country and illustrated both homogeneity and heterogeneity that still exists in different educational contexts.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
Bergh, A. (2015). Local quality work in an age of accountability – between autonomy and control. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 590-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1017612
Brisard, E.; Menter, I., & Smith, I. (2007). Researching trends in initial teacher education policy and practice in an era of globalization and devolution: a rationale and a methodology for an Anglo‐Scottish ‘home international’ study. Comparative Education, 43(2), 207-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060701362458
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2017) Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Directorate for Education and Training (DET), Norway (2017). Core curriculum – values and principles for primary and secondary education. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/53d21ea2bc3a4202b86b83cfe82da93e/core-curriculum.pdf
Directorate for Education and Training (DET), Norway (2011). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education Norway. https://www.oecd.org/norway/48632032.pdf
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669
Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2011). Conceptualizing Curriculum Knowledge Within and Beyond the National Context. In M. G. L. Yates (Ed.), Curriculum in Today’s World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities, Work and Politics (pp. 58-76). Routledge.
Landman, T., & Carvalho, E. (2017). Issues and methods in comparative politics: An Introduction (4th ed.). Routledge.
Lennert da Silva, A. L., & Mølstad, C. E. (2020). Teacher autonomy and teacher agency: A comparative study in Brazilian and Norwegian lower-secondary education. Curriculum Journal, 31(1), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.3
Macedo, E. (2019). National curriculum in Brazil: between accountability and social justice. Curriculum Perspectives, 39(2), 187-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00075-3
Mausethagen, S. (2013). Reshaping teacher professionalism: an analysis of how teachers construct and negotiate professionalism under increasing accountability (2013, nr. 5). Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo.
Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T. S., & Skedsmo, G. (2018). Elevresultater: mellom kontroll og utvikling [Student results: between control and development]. Fagbokforlaget.
Ministry of Education (ME), Brazil. (2017). Base Nacional Comum Curricular: Educacão é a Base [Common Curricular National Base: Education is the foundation]. http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/images/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal_site.pdf
Ministry of Education and Research (MER), Norway. (2016). Meld. St. 28 - Fag – Fordypning – Forståelse En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet [Report to the Parliament no. 28 - Subjects - Specialization – Understanding. A renewal of the Knowledge Promotion]. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-28-20152016/id2483955/
Ministry of Education and Research (MER), Norway. (2017). Meld. St. 21 - Lærelyst – tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen [Report to the Parliament no. 21 - Desire for learning - early efforts and quality in school]. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-21-20162017/id2544344/
Mølstad, C. E., & Hansén, S.-E. (2013). The Curriculum as a Governing Instrument - A Comparative Study of Finland and Norway. Education Inquiry, 4(4), 735-753. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i4.23219
National Board of Education (NBE), Ministry of Education, Brazil (2010a). Parecer CNE/CEB nº: 7/2010. http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=5368-pceb008-10&category_slug=maio-2010-pdf&Itemid=30192
National Board of Education (NBE), Ministry of Education, Brazil. (2010b). Parecer CNE/CEB nº: 8/2010. http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=5063-parecercne-seb8-2010&Itemid=30192
National Board of Education (NBE), Brazil. (2019). Parecer CNE/CEB Nº: 3/2019. http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=110291-pceb003-19-1&category_slug=abril-2019-pdf&Itemid=30192
National Congress (NC), Brazil (2014). Lei nº 13.005, de 25 de Junho de 2014. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l13005.htm
OECD (2014). A Teachers’ Guide to TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning International Survey. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264216075-en
OECD (2016). Ensuring accountability in education, in Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262829-7-en
OECD (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en
Parish, K. (2019). A theoretical approach to understanding the global/local nexus: the adoption of an institutional logics framework. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 3(2), 3-19. http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3027
Powell, W. W. & Bromley, P. (2013). New Institutionalism in the Analysis of Complex Organizations. In J. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 764-769). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.32181-x
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2016). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239569
Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018 Insights and Interpretations. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf
Sinclair, A. (1995). The Chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)e0003-y
Solbrekke, T. D., & Sugrue, C. (2014). Professional accreditation of initial teacher education programmes: Teacher educators' strategies - Between ‘accountability’ and ‘professional responsibility’? Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.015
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2003). The Politics of League Tables. Journal of Social Science Education, 2(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-301
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.875649
Therrien, J. & Loiola, F. (2001). Experiência e competência no ensino: pistas de reflexões sobre a natureza do saber-ensinar na perspectiva da ergonomia do trabalho docente [Teaching experience and competence: reflecting over the nature of knowledge of teaching in the ergonomics perspective of teacher’s work]. Educ. Soc., Campinas, 12(73), 143-160.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (2013). Institutional logics. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 99-129). Sage Publications.
UNESCO (2017). Global Education Monitoring Report: Accountability in Education. Meeting our commitments. http://gem-report-2017.unesco.org/en/home/
Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2013.830079
Verger, A. (2014). Why do Policy-makers Adopt Global Education Policies? Toward a Research Framework on the Varying Role of Ideas in Education Reform. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16(2), 14-29.
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: how and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 248-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882
Villani, M., & Oliveira, D. A. (2018). Avaliação nacional e internacional no Brasil: Os vínculos entre o PISA e o IDEB. [National and international assessment in Brazil: The link between PISA and IDEB.] Educacao and Realidade, 43(4), 1343-1362. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623684893
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Ana Lucia Lennert da Silva, Karen Parish
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.