QUESTIONING THE NATURE OF CROSS-NATIONAL STUDIES vis-à-vis RACISM, CLASSISM
& SEXISM.
"A report card on public education is a report card on
the nation".1
John P. Keeve in
his article, "The Case for International Comparisons" marks the
importance of education on a "world" level which Torsten Husén, in his article,
"The
'Take-Off' of International Comparative Studies in Education", also
reinforces. In the context of cross-national
studies -whereby researchers partly sought to examine factors that influenced
educational outcomes across countries2-
I will deconstruct the exclusionary nature of these studies. The following discussion will
be grounded around my framework to explore the importance attached to a country's level
of achievement in determining its youth's educational futures. I will begin with providing a summary of the
articles. A critique of the authors' use of exclusionary language will follow which will
serve to illustrate how it reinforces the sexist, racist, and classist agenda of
researchers vis-à-vis preserving the interests of the status quo. This will be
demonstrated by providing examples of how racism, sexism, and classism embody such
interests and serve to perpetuate a hierarchy of achievement thereby categorizing
countries accordingly. Finally, I will address the implications for those
"countries" and its "youth" not deemed to live up to the standards of
"achievement".
Keeves' historical insight looks at the emergence in international comparisons as rooted in partly the
growth toward universal secondary education in many countries3, and an interest of how
education systems were fairing in comparison with other countries4 . During the 20th
century, the field of "comparative education"
had made headways in education5.
In the mid-1900s, the field of "international
comparisons" emerged in response to the failure of comparative educators to
accumulate sufficient evidence6.
With the support of the UNESCO Institute for Education, educators argued
that "…it was also necessary to examine the outcomes of education…"7. In 1959 they strengthened
their efforts with the establishment of The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)8. With the aim of
examining why countries differ in their levels of achievement, the IEA presented evidence
in the form of ten key findings which can be found in Appendix A. Keeves concludes his
article by providing an explanation of ten characteristics of IEA research which make it
possible to continue and gain strength.
Paralleled with Keeves's article, Husén too takes a look at the nature of international comparative studies while providing, unlike Keeves', an in depth explanation of the factors influencing its development. Keeves looks at how agencies and programs, and social conditions promoted the "take-off" of these studies. For instance, in the United States in 1957, the Sputnik became a turning point in education9. Because the U.S. believed the U.S.S.R. held advances in technology, this spurred "Western" countries to meet with UNESCO between 1957-1960 to discuss how cross-national differences could be explained10. In 1960 The Organization for Economic
Co-operation
and Development (OECD) aimed for
economic growth of its "member" countries. Finally, the development of The Williamsburg
Conferences in 1967 aimed to
ultimately 'internationalize' education.
Husén looks at how the "membership" of participants cuts across all categories
of experts in education11
and nations to exchange and diffuse their experiences. A problem facing education, namely
in Europe and America, are the nature of provisions in reconciling the concern for
providing multiculturalism given the high number of students from "Third World"
countries in European and American universities. A globalization of education then is in
the wings12.
The study of education is not without its benefits for those who wish to pursue it.
Why is there astronomical importance attached to a country's level of achievement in
determining its youth educational futures and consequently life chances? It seems to
me that there is a need for countries to be
categorized and classified into boxes, based on pre-conceived notions of researchers and
the like, so sweeping generalizations can be made about the "less desirable" and
"preferred" countries. There are several instances in the articles of Keeves and
Husén where their nature of exclusionary language embodies an agenda designed to serve
the interests of researchers which coincide with their notions around racism, sexism, and
classism.
For instance, when using the words, 'developing countries', 'highly developed
countries', 'Third World countries', 'Europe' and 'other countries', the authors fail to
make a distinction of specifically which countries they are referring to. This lack of
distinction is reflected in the following words of Keeves and in the research of the IEA;
"It was only in the English-speaking countries that girls showed superior
performance on the reading and listening tests of French as a foreign
language".13
(emphasis added)
It is also
reflected in Husén's words;
"Even though a few representatives from Eastern countries participated…the
"world" at that time was by
sheer necessity conceived of as Western plus
the Third World countries".14 (emphasis added)
By using the
language, "…in the English-speaking countries", and "…as Western plus
the Third World countries" the authors set and perpetuate an "us" vs.
"them" dichotomy, meaning an implicit distinction being made between the
"English-speaking countries" (developed) and the "Third World countries" (developing). That is, the
"West" constructs the "East" in their own images which connotes the
supposed abnormality of 'other' youth whose
countries are not deemed to have a high level of achievement. The authors assume that
their readers "know" who they are comparing the
"English-speaking" countries and the West against: those unintelligible and
illiterate ethnic and racial youth who are descendents of the Third World. It is as if
this separation of the "us" from the "other" is made to appear natural
as if the reader knows beforehand who the authors are referring to. It must be the youth
from the "Third World" countries because we all "know" that they possess these latter traits, or do they? And are only
those youth who speak fluent English apart of the "English-speaking countries"?
It is no wonder why there is such importance attached to a country's level of achievement.
There is a need of cross-national researchers to classify "who belongs" and who
does not in order to justify and legitimize a country's poor level of achievement.
The mechanisms of justification and legitimization are perhaps devices that
cross-national researchers are well acquainted with. The exclusionary nature of the
author's language then is also characterized by their failure to make mention of the
researchers race, gender, and class. By
excluding this information -that their membership was
primarily comprised of supposedly white, upper-class Anglo-Saxon males- it leads to
normalizing that social power comes naturally
to whites to exercise and maintain which is not questioned. When speaking in depth of The Williamsburg
Conferences, Husén
particularly underscores such dynamics. In his words, for instance,
"Several of them
were actively engaged in 'internationalizing'
education…Williamsburg was a breakthrough for global perspectives in education…The list
of participants…cuts across all categories of experts in education…". 15 (emphasis added)
"The other source of crisis was the widening gap in
educational provisions between the rich and the
poor countries…".16
"The conference was a major 'splash' simply by bringing together high level people to an exchange of views and experiences".17
(emphasis added)
It is interesting to note the irony inherent here. While these researchers claim to engage in "internationalizing" education the membership of their participants suggests that its participants do not cut across all categories of experts in education. While these researchers aim at identifying sources of problems, such as the widening gap between the rich and poor countries, their claims are not entirely accurate because its membership does not represent educators from other parts of the world. Thereby, their views and experiences represent their status and commonality of interests mediating their race, class, and gender. Who constitutes as "crossing all categories of experts" and which countries constitute the "international" front needs to be questioned then by Husén. It follows that all interests of countries are not being served when the state also enforces researchers' interests in order to preserve the hegemony of the status quo.
In this light, one is unable to question what the limitations may be for those
countries and its youth not considered to have a high level of achievement. Given that the
authors' use of exclusionary language reflects such a barrier we naturally accept the
"sorting" of countries into appropriate slots to occur. When drawing parallels
with theorists such as, structural functionalists, who endorse this sorting and selecting
of students into their appropriate educational and occupational futures (Anisef,
07/10/99), this demonstrates that there is the similar need for researchers to categorize countries into "boxes" so
assumptions can be made about less desirable countries.
Implications for the above lines of thinking are manifold. For those youth whose
countries are deemed less developed, "Third World", hence less academically
inclined, they may have an indirect
impact. That is, they may be "seen" as less favorable and marketable because
their country's level of achievement is ranked as low. These youth may be seen as
"unfortunate" and hence stigmatized as "deviant" in their transitions
from school to work which contradicts the reality of the lives of these youth . In
addition, by making generalized claims that a student's class status and gender positively
correlates with achievement, the assumption is made that all youth in that country receive
equal treatment and when oppression is evident it is experienced equally by all.
I suggest that the
interlocking oppressions of race, class, and gender, are experienced differently by all
youth and that socioeconomic status -measured by parental level of occupation and
education as defined by researchers18 does
not merely constitute as influencing high levels of achievement. The exclusionary nature
of these studies thereby can also be characterized by their reinforcements of the
invisibility of "disabled" youth, for instance, who are deemed not worthy of
consideration. It follows that, when analyzing the categories of class, and gender, both
authors underscore how multiple factors can
interplay simultaneously in producing multiple oppressions faced by youth and in mediating
achievement levels.
This process of
homogenizing incorrect representations of, for instance, the "Third World",
makes the invisibility of its youth seem natural. It is expected that because a country's
level of achievement is low, its youth will come to perform low-paying menial occupations.
These implications highlight that youth whose countries are deemed as having a low level
of achievement are judged according to a label or categorization scheme placed on a given
country. For instance, because Third World countries are associated with race, colour, and
low class status, its youth may be judged according to the stereotypes or essentialist
views researchers bring with them when analyzing "different" countries.
The racist, sexist, and classist agenda or researchers is evident in their failure to also consider how institutional processes, issues of language barriers, identity struggles, and cultural hegemony, pose barriers for student achievement. And when immigrant youth from Third World countries in Europe and U.S. are presented as a "problem" in education, as stated by Husén, it appears that they should remain in their home countries to which they "belong". It also seems that educators view "change" as negative than a positive force perhaps in preserving the hegemony of the status quo and in keeping the cultural fabric of society at ease by devising methods to systemically send messages to Third World youth that they "do not belong" in the more progressive countries. The authors seem to reinforce such thinking which is made apparent when deconstructing how it mediates ideas surrounding racism, sexism, and classism. The allocation of countries into a sort of hierarchy of achievement needs to end if researchers are to analyze countries neutrally.