7. Education Reforms

Abstract

In Chapter 7, we analyse the interactions between ideology, governance, conflicts of interest and the evidence provided by ILSAs. We argue that the evidence can be split into three main categories. The first category includes strong evidence which has no impact on policy. The most robust evidence suggests that is reduced impact for greater levels of investment, i.e. decreases in class size and increases in teacher salaries, does not work in education. The reason why this approach has had no influence is because it generates a head-on conflict between the vested interests of unions and those of most stakeholders who strongly oppose them, because they are recommending a decrease in the amount of resources received from public funds. The second category includes variables that are strongly context-dependent (such as enhanced school autonomy), which may be difficult for policymakers to interpret. Furthermore, policy recommendations often ignore this fact and recommend such policies universally with dire consequences. Finally, the third category includes variables that attempt to measure equity, which tend to be inconclusive and partial, meaning that the policy recommendations have been heavily influenced by ideology. This has led to a universal recommendation to apply comprehensive policies and avoid those that are regarded as ‘discriminatory’ (such as ability grouping and early tracking). Such policies lead to the worst outcomes in terms of equity among non-egalitarian societies.