Val D. Rust

The democratic tradition and the evolution of schooling in Norway

Preface Social and Educational Foundations in Norway Democracy and Education in Pre-Independent Norway Educational Alternatives at the Time of Independence Educational Imperatives in Independent Norway First Reform Cycle--A Norwegian School Structure Takes Form Educational Overtones in Romantic Nationalism The Winds of Educational Reform Social Reform Impulses at Mid-Century Hartvig Nissen and the Foundation of Modern Schooling Second Reform Cycle--A Norwegian Folk School A Common Foundation School Education Beyond the Folk School Extension of Participation in Education Workers and Their Education Third Reform Cycle--Toward a Unified School Education in a Free Norway: 1905 and Beyond The Labor Party Takes Command Education during World War II and Its Aftermath Fourth Reform Cycle--Structural Reform Completed Experimenting with New School Forms The Nine Year Basic School Reform at the Upper Secondary School Norwegian School Reform--Consequences and Problems Equality of Educational Opportunity Control Issues in Education Educational Reform in Norway Index

Educational Reform in Norway and in England and Wales: A Corporatist Interpretation

tag=1 data=Educational reform in Norway and in England and Wales: a corporatist interpretation. tag=2 data=Rust, Val D.%Blakemore, Kenneth tag=3 data=Comparative Education Review, tag=6 data=^d ^mNov ^y1990 tag=8 data=EDUCATION tag=9 data=DEVOLUTION%SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT%WALES%NORWAY tag=15 data=JOU

The Place of International Education in the Comparative Education Review

Shortly after the Comparative Education Society was organized in 1955, it set about to establish an “official organ,” which it named the Comparative Education Review (CER). In 1972, under the leadership of its president, Stewart E. Fraser, the Society changed its name to the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), and the intent was clearly to extend the boundaries of the field beyond comparative education to include international efforts in education. However, CIES chose to retain the original name of its journal, the Comparative Education Review. The question might legitimately be raised as to the place of “international education” in CER. The answer to this question depends in part on the way that we distinguish between the two aspects of our field. It is inadvisable to draw a firm distinction, though scholars typically regard “comparative education” to include the more academic, analytic, and scientific aspects of the field, while international education is related to cooperation, understanding, and exchange elements. International education is usually seen as a more practice-oriented activity, particularly in terms of cross-cultural and crossnational relationships. Its training orientation is to prepare men and women to participate in a world where international cooperation and understanding are essential. It has rarely been conceived as a distinct field of study or even as a subdiscipline in education. Consequently, there is little discussion among those who identify themselves as international educators as to methodological or theoretical issues that might define their work. Rather, they are particularly concerned about administering programs that stress relationships, cooperation, and understanding across borders. A brief perusal of the articles appearing in reputable journals in international education, including International Educator, International Education, and Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, reinforces this general distinction, even though some important, theoretically based research studies can be found in these journals. Those of us on the current editorial board of CER express a strong commitment to the publication of international-education-oriented articles. Of course, we reiterate that all submissions ought to have an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework, reflect originality in analysis or method, have an appropriate methodological approach, and make a contribution to the advancement of knowledge. The spheres of international education include topics such as international development, peace studies, and international student exchange. These are all crucial to CIES, and many in our academic communities are professionally active in them. We laud their efforts

Current Research Trends in Globalisation and Neo-liberalism in Higher Education

The chapter focuses on current research trends in higher education. The chapter analyses and evaluates the ascent of a neo-liberal and neoconservative higher education policy, globalisation and practices of governance education, global university rankings, internationalization, quality assurance, entrepreneurial and competitive ways of competition for international students among universities, both locally and globally.

Shifting Perspectives on Comparative Research: A view from the USA

The evolution of scholarship in comparative education in the USA has reached a point where several observations are possible. While there is variation in methodology and theory, three principal perspectives tend to be represented in most contemporary articles published in the top journals in the field. These might be referred to as being area studies based, social science disciplinary based, or development/planning studies based. In this article we briefly trace the evolution of these perspectives, identify some stress points in the field, and look ahead to whether or not the field is facing competition among these perspectives or convergence. We suggest that the field of comparative education, not being bound by one or another of these perspectives, can play a significant role in the reconstruction of learning.

Globalisation and New Developments in Global University Rankings

In the past two decades, higher education has been going through a dramatic change, in large part to meet the dramatic challenge of globalization. A number of theoretical orientations have been devised to explain some of these changes, including intriguing labels such as Academic Capitalism and McDonaldization. These orientations usually give excessive attention to the market as the impetus for driving institutional reform, and the greatest indicator of this change is the growing importance of global university rankings. However, scholars, politicians, and pundits have also generated widespread criticism to rankings, and in response to that criticism, alternative ranking systems have begun to be formulated. This paper explores the growing criticism to established global university rankings and the criteria developed for alternative ranking systems, including the European Commission rankings, the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) rankings, and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. We ultimately ask whether these new ranking systems are improving the process or adding to the negative attention to rankings.

Research in Globalisation and Higher Education Reforms

This chapter discusses and evaluates critically current neo-liberal reforms in higher education. It examines major trends in current research in higher education reforms, the politics of education reforms in general, and role of the state, and dominant ideologies defining and shaping policy priorities of efficiency and performance indicators. In evaluating current research on globalisation, policy and the politics of higher education reforms it needs to be concluded that education and societies are under constant pressure from the forces of globalisation, dominant ideologies, and the ubiquitous competitive market forces. The higher education sector, having adopted the entrepreneurial business model, is compelled to embrace neo-liberal ideology, characterised by the corporate ethos of the efficiency, accountability, standards, performance, and profit-driven managerialism. Global competition, university rankings and leagues tables, and internationalisation, are some of the few characteristics defining and shaping the university governance and culture glocally.

Globalization and Global University Rankings

Globalization has been neither neutral nor uniform in its impact. It affects countries, cultures, and systems in different ways—some in positive ways and others in more negative ways. All sectors of society are being affected; and higher education is no exception. The increased importance of the knowledge industry, innovations in information and communication technologies, a stronger orientation to the market economy, and growth in regional and international governance systems all contribute to an accelerated flow of people, ideas, culture, technology, goods, and services in our globalized world. University documents and mission statements indicate the importance of higher education in the global arena. A number of issues link globalization and higher education, including a growing demand for post-secondary education, a growing number and types of “for-profit” sponsors of higher education, and the emergence of innovative cross-border institutions. As globalization has become the focal point of higher education, competition has become a central preoccupation. Competition is closely connected with a global free-market economy. Combined with the impact of globalization and the development of the global “knowledge economy,” these competitive forces have resulted in the global competition phenomenon that is currently reshaping higher education. Many developments characterize global competition in higher education. This paper discusses some of these developments, including (1) the rise of global university rankings, (2) declarations by nations to have a world-class university, (3) the development of regional units of control and reform, (4) the development of cross-border quality assessment practices, and (5) the internationalization of universities.

Control Mechanics and Their Justifications in Preschool Classrooms

In the classroom, as in any sociocultural system (Beals et al., 1967), behavior must be predictable within definable limits in order that teaching and learning may proceed. When students enter the classroom as the school year begins, they await the arrival of the teacher who will provide, either on her own, or in concert with them, the rules and norms for classroom operation. Some teachers do so gradually over time, whereas others may present specific guidelines or rules which set minimum behavioral standards. Many of the control mechanisms in evidence in the classroom occur at a conscious level; others appear to be unconscious, in that they are habitual responses to events which occur regularly. Both the conscious and unconscious levels have impact on class-

The German Image of American Education through the Weimar Period

Dieser Beitrag beiast sich mit dem deutschen Interesse am Erziehungswesen in den Vereinigten Staaten von der zweiten Halfte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende der Weimarer Republik. Dabei scheinen v.a. zwei Stromungen von historischer Bedeutung gewesen zu sein. Zum einen haben verschiedene Gruppierungen in Deutschland die politischen, sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und intellektuellen Bereiche des amerikanischen Lebens mit Symbolwerten versehen, deren Bedeutung sich aber im Verlauf der Zeit anderte, so das sowohl positive als auch negative Amerikabilder entstehen konnten. Zum anderen auserte sich das deutsche Interesse am amerikanischen Erziehungswesen zu bestimmten Zeiten starker in praktischer Hinsicht, zu anderen Zeiten dagegen starker in soziokultureller Hinsicht. Wahrend einige deutsche Padagogen die Vorbildfunktion des amerikanischen Bildungswesens betonten, suchten andere eher nach Theoriebildung und wissenschaftlicher Analyse.