The legitimation of OECD's global educational governance: examining PISA and AHELO test production

Abstract

Although international student assessments and the role of international organisations (IOs) in governing education via an evidence-based educational policy discourse are of growing interest to educational researchers, few have explored the complex ways in which an IO, such as the OECD, gains considerable influence in governing education during the early stages of test production. Drawing on a comparative analysis of the production of two international tests – the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) – we show how the OECD legitimises its power, and expertise, and defines ‘what counts’ in education. The OECD deploys three mechanisms of educational governance: (1) building on past OECD successes; (2) assembling knowledge capacity; and (3) deploying bureaucratic resources. We argue that the early stages of test production by IOs are significant sites in which the global governance of education is legitimated and enacted.

Notes on contributers

Clara Morgan teaches at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies at Carleton University. Her research interests include national and transnational educational policy and governance. Her most recent publication is ‘Constructing the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment’, in M. Pereyra et al. (eds), PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools.

Riyad A. Shahjahan is an assistant professor of the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) programme at Michigan State University. His areas of research interest include the globalisation of higher education policy, teaching and learning in higher education, equity and social justice, and anti-/postcolonial theory. His most recent publications include: ‘The roles of international organisations (IOs) in globalising higher education policy’, in J. Smart and M. Paulsen (eds), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 27, 369–407; and ‘Beyond the “national container”: Addressing methodological nationalism in higher education research’, Educational Researcher 42, no. 1: 20–29 (co-authored with Adrianna Kezar).

Notes

1. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a thorough analysis of the OECD's official account for the AHELO rationale. For in-depth critical policy analyses of these rationales, please refer to Shahjahan and Torres (2013) and Shahjahan (2013).

2. The CLA gained significant attention in the United States when analysis of 2011 CLA results found that US graduates were failing to master higher-order cognitive skills (Arum and Roska 2011).