Deflecting European Union Influence on National Education Policy-Making: The Case of the United Kingdom

Abstract

This article examines how education policies developed in the European Union (EU) through the open method of co-ordination (OMC) are received at the member state level of the United Kingdom (UK). We argue that the UK’s response to the education OMC can be understood mainly in terms of deflecting EU influence on the process and content of national education policy-making. We focus on three manifestations of deflecting EU influence on national education policies. On a level of institutional structures, first, few organizational resources are made available for responding to the education OMC. Second, there is limited communication between domestic policy teams and UK civil servants involved in international work. Third, on a level of discourse UK education policy-makers have retained a commitment to the continued sovereignty of the UK over education policy and its role as a potential leader of education policy agendas in the EU. Deflecting the education OMC involves here constructing images of ‘fit’ between UK and EU OMC education policies.

Key words:

• European integration
• education policy-making
• open method of co-ordination
• peer learning
• discursive institutionalism

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the participation of staff from the Joint International Unit (JIU), the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), and the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG-EAC) in the research project. Research participants made generously time available for interviews and provided the authors with valuable information and organisational reports. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be taken to be those of JIU, BIS, DG–EAC or its staff.

Notes

1. We focus here on the UK government and how it defines the domestic agenda in relation to EU education policy. This agenda is received and inflected differently in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which have interconnected but different education systems. Since 1999 when the UK devolved powers to a Parliament in Scotland, and Assemblies in the other three nations, education has been a ‘devolved’ matter, although international relations are still handled by the central Westminster government (Cole and Palmer 2011). The reception and mediation of the education OMC therefore comes both within the ambit of international policy handled by the London based national government, and potentially devolved education policy-making in Scotland, Wales and Northern-Ireland. There is evidence that Scotland is more receptive to some EU education policy initiatives than England, but this has to be understood also in light of Scotland’s attempt to secure further independence from the central UK government (Dardanelli 2005). Wales is likely to develop a similar approach to Scotland in relation to the education OMC. Welsh Ministers already speak in the European Council on education separate from the UK delegation and in general attempt to influence policy development through informal mechanisms and personal contacts (Cole and Palmer 2011).

2. In June 2010 we conducted semi-structured interviews (each 90 minutes long) with two UK civil servants who are the main policy actors involved in the reception of the education OMC. One was located within the Joint International Unit (JIU), and the other within the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). These two civil servants constitute nearly the whole population of participants that could have been interviewed. At the time of the interviews there was another (absent) member of staff, and a more senior manager who had ‘the OMC’ remit as 25% of their responsibilities. We also draw on follow-up email communications with these respondents.

3. In January 2010 we conducted eight semi-structured interviews (50–90 minutes) with European Commission officials in the DG Education and Culture (DG EAC), Directorate A (Lifelong Learning: Horizontal policy issues and 2020 strategy), and Directorate B (Lifelong Learning: Policies and programmes).

4. The UK civil service documents consist of the JIU Strategic Narrative 2010/2011 paper, the JIU Organisational Chart (May 2010), and a discussion paper produced by the JIU entitled ‘Open Method of Coordination – An opportunity for the UK in the field of education’ (referred to as ‘OMC discussion paper 2010’).

5. We examined the following Progress Reports: (a) European Commission (2005) Implementing the ‘Education and Training 2010’ Work Programme – Report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon Objectives; (b) European Commission (2007) Education and Training 2010 – Report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon Objectives; (c) European Commission (2009) Education and Training 2010 – Report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon Objectives.

6. In our original research design we defined ‘education’ policy-making as excluding higher education and the Bologna process because more studies have been already published on the internalisation of higher education than on other education sectors. Also, in contrast to the education OMC, the Bologna process is based on intergovernmental decision-making and includes a wider range of countries than EU member states. Higher education appears simply as an example used by our interview respondents to illustrate policy mediation. We recognize, however, that the Lisbon strategy and its successor Europe 2020 moved the university sector to the heart of the agenda for economic growth and innovation, by setting a target of at least 40% of 30- to 34-year-olds by 2020 completing third level education, with clear links to the EU’s actions around Research and Development (Gornitzka 2010).

7. In March 2010 the JIU had a total of 122,32 full-time equivalent members of staff.

8. It was set up under the Labour government, to serve the then Department for Children, Schools and Families.

9. Another sub-division deals with various EU programmes. The remaining five sub-divisions deal with the OECD and relations of the UK with non-EU countries (Organisational Chart 2010).

10. The European Scrutiny Committee analyzes the legal and political importance of each EU document and decides which are debated. An Explanatory Memorandum is prepared for each document by the relevant Minister’s office. Documents that are perceived as important are discussed in the Committee’s weekly Reports. Ministers should only agree to EU proposals when these are cleared by the Committee (www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/european-scrutiny-committee/).

11. Odile Quintin was the Director of DG EAC until Jan Truszczyński replaced her in May 2010.

12. Linked to the then Department for Children, Schools and Families. ‘The new English secondary curriculum should enable all young people to become a) successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve; b) confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives; c) responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society’ (http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims-values-and-purposes/aims/index.aspx).

13. Our research is based on an exploratory, qualitative case study and it is therefore a matter for further research to determine under what conditions interrelated discourses and institutions generate specific manifestations of the reception and mediation of the education OMC in the UK.