Page 51 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 51
erpretative and neopragmatist form of (neoliberal, author’s note) making 51
sense together (Hoppe, 2011: 55). The role of national actors (including experts)
is, in the author’s opinion, to judge what expert data (developed at an EU lev-
el) and proposals for resolving the perceived policy problem are to be consid-
ered as legitimate in implementing changes and improvements into the na-
tional system (Wiseman, 2010: 9). Appropriate use of expert data, which can be
acquired from international comparative assessment studies and other studies
at an EU level, can guarantee that any special national characteristics and the
quality of the educational system are preserved, and distances us from reck-
less acceptance of their neoliberal assumptions (Grek, 2008). This awareness
enables the establishment of a suitable ratio between utilising the potentials
of the OMC, which have in Slovenia so far not been fully exploited, and avoid-
ing blind steerability in using expert data, which has been developed as part
of the OMC process and been pointed out by a number of authors. A critical
reflection of the new mode of governance in the EU in the field of educational
policies, highlights the significance of thorough consideration in following its
goals and instruments of governance. It seems that developing unique solu-
tions for the policy problem of academic underachievement of Slovenian ado-
lescents (perceived on the basis of international comparisons of performance
of Slovenian 15-year olds in PISA and non-achievement of the relevant Europe-
an benchmark) can, in a certain segment, also significantly contribute to pre-
serving special features and sovereignty of the national educational system.
References
Alexiadou, N. (2007). The Europeanisation of education policy – changing gov-
ernance and ‘new modes of coordination’. Research in Comparative and In-
ternational Education, 2(2), 102–116.
Alexiadou, N., and Lange, B. (2013). Deflecting European Union influence on na-
tional education policy-making: the case of the United Kingdom. Journal
of European Integration, 35(1), 37–52.
Bernhard, S. (2011). Beyond Constructivism: The Political Sociology of an EU
Policy Field. International Political Sociology, 5(4), 426–445.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: evidence-based practice and
the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1),
1–22.
Borrás, S., and Conzelmann, T. (2007). Democracy, Legitimacy and Soft Modes
of Governance in the EU: The Empirical Turn. Journal of European Integra-
tion, 29(5), 531–548.
academic (under)achievement of slovenian adolescents within a european context
sense together (Hoppe, 2011: 55). The role of national actors (including experts)
is, in the author’s opinion, to judge what expert data (developed at an EU lev-
el) and proposals for resolving the perceived policy problem are to be consid-
ered as legitimate in implementing changes and improvements into the na-
tional system (Wiseman, 2010: 9). Appropriate use of expert data, which can be
acquired from international comparative assessment studies and other studies
at an EU level, can guarantee that any special national characteristics and the
quality of the educational system are preserved, and distances us from reck-
less acceptance of their neoliberal assumptions (Grek, 2008). This awareness
enables the establishment of a suitable ratio between utilising the potentials
of the OMC, which have in Slovenia so far not been fully exploited, and avoid-
ing blind steerability in using expert data, which has been developed as part
of the OMC process and been pointed out by a number of authors. A critical
reflection of the new mode of governance in the EU in the field of educational
policies, highlights the significance of thorough consideration in following its
goals and instruments of governance. It seems that developing unique solu-
tions for the policy problem of academic underachievement of Slovenian ado-
lescents (perceived on the basis of international comparisons of performance
of Slovenian 15-year olds in PISA and non-achievement of the relevant Europe-
an benchmark) can, in a certain segment, also significantly contribute to pre-
serving special features and sovereignty of the national educational system.
References
Alexiadou, N. (2007). The Europeanisation of education policy – changing gov-
ernance and ‘new modes of coordination’. Research in Comparative and In-
ternational Education, 2(2), 102–116.
Alexiadou, N., and Lange, B. (2013). Deflecting European Union influence on na-
tional education policy-making: the case of the United Kingdom. Journal
of European Integration, 35(1), 37–52.
Bernhard, S. (2011). Beyond Constructivism: The Political Sociology of an EU
Policy Field. International Political Sociology, 5(4), 426–445.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: evidence-based practice and
the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1),
1–22.
Borrás, S., and Conzelmann, T. (2007). Democracy, Legitimacy and Soft Modes
of Governance in the EU: The Empirical Turn. Journal of European Integra-
tion, 29(5), 531–548.
academic (under)achievement of slovenian adolescents within a european context
