Page 118 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 118
ear ly school leaving: contempor ary european perspectives
presents the biggest theoretical considerations of policy learning the-
ory via the questions ‘Who learns?’, ‘How do they learn?’, ‘What do
they learn?’, ‘Why do they learn?’, ‘With what effect do they learn?’
and provides some concrete examples of policy learning within the
European educational space and the TITA project. The paper shows
that various individual, collective, state and non-state actors are in-
volved in more and less institutionalised forms of policy learning. It
points out that benchmarking charts (showing differences and com-
mon trends in tackling ESL in the EU) require an in-depth contextu-
alisation so as to become a valuable source for policy (and not mere-
ly social and policy learning). In order to justify the main motives
for policy learning (to find a solution to ESL in the EU and follow a
commonly agreed goal), the results of the local TITA experiments
(in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland) must not only be appro-
priately contextualised, but also horizontally and vertically trans-
ferred to and across the EU.
Key words: EU, ESL, policy learning, policy experimentation
Introduction
Eurostat (2017) reports that since 2000 ESL in the EU has been stably de-
creasing and approaching the agreed target (10% of ESLers in 2020). Yet,
greater insight reveals that, despite this common trend, differences among
member states remain large not only in the shares of ESL (e.g. 19% in Spain,
4.9% in Slovenia in 2016), but also in the approaches (policies and practic-
es) used to tackle it. Another explanation of these big differences is that EU
cooperation in the area of education (including ESL) is based on the open
method of coordination (OMC), a specific, non-binding form of coopera-
tion that does not require national laws to be harmonised, and thus ena-
bles very unique national responses to be developed for a widely recognised
problem and for common EU goals to be achieved in the field. In this envi-
ronment, differences should be seen as a lucky situation and a precondition
for policy learning (Radaelli, 2003).1 The emergence of policy learning as a
1 Diversity leads to greater opportunities for mutual learning by creating a richer
stock of experiences to draw on when devising new policies. The development of
new policy innovations is not explicitly part of this institutional long-term capabil-
ity of the whole system for generating policy innovations. If a successful OMC in a
particular policy field implies that all member states have imitated the “best policy”
that was identified, this may lead to the convergence or even harmonisation of pol-
icies in member states, thereby limiting the possibilities for policy learning (Kerber
& Eckardt, 2007).
118
presents the biggest theoretical considerations of policy learning the-
ory via the questions ‘Who learns?’, ‘How do they learn?’, ‘What do
they learn?’, ‘Why do they learn?’, ‘With what effect do they learn?’
and provides some concrete examples of policy learning within the
European educational space and the TITA project. The paper shows
that various individual, collective, state and non-state actors are in-
volved in more and less institutionalised forms of policy learning. It
points out that benchmarking charts (showing differences and com-
mon trends in tackling ESL in the EU) require an in-depth contextu-
alisation so as to become a valuable source for policy (and not mere-
ly social and policy learning). In order to justify the main motives
for policy learning (to find a solution to ESL in the EU and follow a
commonly agreed goal), the results of the local TITA experiments
(in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland) must not only be appro-
priately contextualised, but also horizontally and vertically trans-
ferred to and across the EU.
Key words: EU, ESL, policy learning, policy experimentation
Introduction
Eurostat (2017) reports that since 2000 ESL in the EU has been stably de-
creasing and approaching the agreed target (10% of ESLers in 2020). Yet,
greater insight reveals that, despite this common trend, differences among
member states remain large not only in the shares of ESL (e.g. 19% in Spain,
4.9% in Slovenia in 2016), but also in the approaches (policies and practic-
es) used to tackle it. Another explanation of these big differences is that EU
cooperation in the area of education (including ESL) is based on the open
method of coordination (OMC), a specific, non-binding form of coopera-
tion that does not require national laws to be harmonised, and thus ena-
bles very unique national responses to be developed for a widely recognised
problem and for common EU goals to be achieved in the field. In this envi-
ronment, differences should be seen as a lucky situation and a precondition
for policy learning (Radaelli, 2003).1 The emergence of policy learning as a
1 Diversity leads to greater opportunities for mutual learning by creating a richer
stock of experiences to draw on when devising new policies. The development of
new policy innovations is not explicitly part of this institutional long-term capabil-
ity of the whole system for generating policy innovations. If a successful OMC in a
particular policy field implies that all member states have imitated the “best policy”
that was identified, this may lead to the convergence or even harmonisation of pol-
icies in member states, thereby limiting the possibilities for policy learning (Kerber
& Eckardt, 2007).
118
