Page 36 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 36
an institutions to govern, steer and monitor member states by means of new
(non-mandatory) policy instruments (Kooiman, 2003: 3), so they can jointly
achieve the set goals through collective resolution of policy problems (Pierre
and Peters, 2000).
If governance is viewed as a structure and a process as part of which a mul-
titude of actors solve policy problems in order to achieve common goals, spe-
cial attention needs to be devoted to the role of goals in steering the partic-
ipants’ activity and behaviour. Sabel and Zeitlin (2010) believe that the new
mode of governance within the EU operates on the basis of four mechanisms:
(1) setting common goals, (2) autonomy of individual participants in achiev-
ing common goals, (3) participants’ responsibility in achieving common goals,
(4) identification of new issues and opportunities in achieving common goals.
Moving on from the original political science definitions of the new mode
of governance in the EU, summarised above, to its definitions from the field of
sociology of education, it can be established that it is defined as an output-ori-
ented governance, governance by comparison, governance of problems and,
last but not least, governance of knowledge.
36 Grek (2009) believes that within the so-called output-oriented governance
the key role is played by data and its management.3 Data enable governing
by means of setting goals, whereby participants’ output is steered towards
achieving goals. The mechanisms of control and influence of behaviour that
take centre stage within the new mode of governance are material and discur-
sive strategies.4 They are combined with external regulatory mechanisms (in-
dicators and benchmarks), which jointly attempt to steer and reshape the ac-
tivities of (an individual or collective) actors. By being published, these data
represent the instrument of encouragement, judgement and comparison of
participants in terms of their output. They thus represent control of the con-
text, yet simultaneously the autonomy of actors operating within the context
in relation to how they are going to achieve their goals. This is a system of disci-
pline based on judgement and classification of participants in achieving (joint-
ly defined) goals. Ozga (2003) believes output-oriented governance has, in the
field of education, become the key instrument for improving educational sys-
tems – improving students’ outcomes and increasing the responsibility of in-
dividual participants for the outcomes. Its impact is based on fear of being be-
also represents coordination of different levels of governance, coordination of involved actors and
coordination of policy instruments.
3 Within the European educational space, data is a scientifically proven fact, acquired by means of
comprehensive international comparative assessment studies and collection of statistical data
about national educational systems (Stone, 2002; Boswell, 2008; Dedering, 2009: 485).
4 Material strategies include, for instance, financial means of European Structural Funds, and discur-
sive strategies the development of a new, so-called European discourse, which influences remould-
ing of participants’ norms and values.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
(non-mandatory) policy instruments (Kooiman, 2003: 3), so they can jointly
achieve the set goals through collective resolution of policy problems (Pierre
and Peters, 2000).
If governance is viewed as a structure and a process as part of which a mul-
titude of actors solve policy problems in order to achieve common goals, spe-
cial attention needs to be devoted to the role of goals in steering the partic-
ipants’ activity and behaviour. Sabel and Zeitlin (2010) believe that the new
mode of governance within the EU operates on the basis of four mechanisms:
(1) setting common goals, (2) autonomy of individual participants in achiev-
ing common goals, (3) participants’ responsibility in achieving common goals,
(4) identification of new issues and opportunities in achieving common goals.
Moving on from the original political science definitions of the new mode
of governance in the EU, summarised above, to its definitions from the field of
sociology of education, it can be established that it is defined as an output-ori-
ented governance, governance by comparison, governance of problems and,
last but not least, governance of knowledge.
36 Grek (2009) believes that within the so-called output-oriented governance
the key role is played by data and its management.3 Data enable governing
by means of setting goals, whereby participants’ output is steered towards
achieving goals. The mechanisms of control and influence of behaviour that
take centre stage within the new mode of governance are material and discur-
sive strategies.4 They are combined with external regulatory mechanisms (in-
dicators and benchmarks), which jointly attempt to steer and reshape the ac-
tivities of (an individual or collective) actors. By being published, these data
represent the instrument of encouragement, judgement and comparison of
participants in terms of their output. They thus represent control of the con-
text, yet simultaneously the autonomy of actors operating within the context
in relation to how they are going to achieve their goals. This is a system of disci-
pline based on judgement and classification of participants in achieving (joint-
ly defined) goals. Ozga (2003) believes output-oriented governance has, in the
field of education, become the key instrument for improving educational sys-
tems – improving students’ outcomes and increasing the responsibility of in-
dividual participants for the outcomes. Its impact is based on fear of being be-
also represents coordination of different levels of governance, coordination of involved actors and
coordination of policy instruments.
3 Within the European educational space, data is a scientifically proven fact, acquired by means of
comprehensive international comparative assessment studies and collection of statistical data
about national educational systems (Stone, 2002; Boswell, 2008; Dedering, 2009: 485).
4 Material strategies include, for instance, financial means of European Structural Funds, and discur-
sive strategies the development of a new, so-called European discourse, which influences remould-
ing of participants’ norms and values.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
