Page 38 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 38
tion. This is evident from a collectively developed policy model that deals with
the issue in question.
The characteristics of the output-oriented governance, governance by
comparison and governance of problems can be described using the common
name governance of knowledge. As a result of technological progress, the da-
ta and findings of scientific analyses have become more widely available than
ever before. At the same time, expectations, with regard to transparency and
public responsibility of European institutions are increasingly high within the
context of increasing democratic deficit in the EU. In order to meet these ex-
pectations, knowledge is used as a supporter of the legitimacy and authori-
ty of social and political processes in the EU, or in other words, the legitimacy
and authority of social and political processes in the EU depend, to a smaller or
larger extent, on the legitimacy and authority of the knowledge on which they
are based (Ozga, 2011: 220). Accordingly, the new mode of governance in the
EU is often understood as the governance of knowledge.
With its apparent objectivity and neutrality (and therewith the pronounced
role of experts and expertise), the OMC steers member states towards achiev-
38 ing common EU goals in the field of education. Although these goals are not
scientifically substantiated and are politically formulated, they are thoroughly
operationalised and quantified by means of indicators and benchmarks, which
seemingly cause neutrality and thus enable a unique mode of governance. In-
dicators and benchmarks (also developed on the basis of the findings of in-
ternational comparative assessment studies) enable assessment and compar-
ison of the performance of member states (output-oriented governance and
governance by comparison) in achieving common (political) EU goals. Inter-
national comparative achievement scales place EU member states under dou-
ble pressure (the feeling of their own (un)competitiveness in comparison with
the performance of other members states, the feeling of ineffectiveness result-
ing from (non)achievement of common goals) and thus steers them towards
achieving the strategiec goals of the EU (Alexiadou, 2007; Ioannidou, 2007).
When member states perceive a policy-related issue (concerning economic
uncompetitiveness) based on their ranking on an international comparative
achievement scale, the most efficient models for their resolution have often al-
ready been developed at an EU level (governance of problems). The presented
dynamic enables reinforcement of European cooperation in the field of edu-
cation in the direction the EU aims for, while its member states follow, endeav-
ouring to maintain their competitiveness in a knowledge-based economy, all
the more eagerly in the last few years with the lingering economic crisis (see
also Tsarouhas, 2009).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
the issue in question.
The characteristics of the output-oriented governance, governance by
comparison and governance of problems can be described using the common
name governance of knowledge. As a result of technological progress, the da-
ta and findings of scientific analyses have become more widely available than
ever before. At the same time, expectations, with regard to transparency and
public responsibility of European institutions are increasingly high within the
context of increasing democratic deficit in the EU. In order to meet these ex-
pectations, knowledge is used as a supporter of the legitimacy and authori-
ty of social and political processes in the EU, or in other words, the legitimacy
and authority of social and political processes in the EU depend, to a smaller or
larger extent, on the legitimacy and authority of the knowledge on which they
are based (Ozga, 2011: 220). Accordingly, the new mode of governance in the
EU is often understood as the governance of knowledge.
With its apparent objectivity and neutrality (and therewith the pronounced
role of experts and expertise), the OMC steers member states towards achiev-
38 ing common EU goals in the field of education. Although these goals are not
scientifically substantiated and are politically formulated, they are thoroughly
operationalised and quantified by means of indicators and benchmarks, which
seemingly cause neutrality and thus enable a unique mode of governance. In-
dicators and benchmarks (also developed on the basis of the findings of in-
ternational comparative assessment studies) enable assessment and compar-
ison of the performance of member states (output-oriented governance and
governance by comparison) in achieving common (political) EU goals. Inter-
national comparative achievement scales place EU member states under dou-
ble pressure (the feeling of their own (un)competitiveness in comparison with
the performance of other members states, the feeling of ineffectiveness result-
ing from (non)achievement of common goals) and thus steers them towards
achieving the strategiec goals of the EU (Alexiadou, 2007; Ioannidou, 2007).
When member states perceive a policy-related issue (concerning economic
uncompetitiveness) based on their ranking on an international comparative
achievement scale, the most efficient models for their resolution have often al-
ready been developed at an EU level (governance of problems). The presented
dynamic enables reinforcement of European cooperation in the field of edu-
cation in the direction the EU aims for, while its member states follow, endeav-
ouring to maintain their competitiveness in a knowledge-based economy, all
the more eagerly in the last few years with the lingering economic crisis (see
also Tsarouhas, 2009).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
