Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:20:37.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global policy convergence through “distributed governance”? The emergence of “national” education standards in the US and Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Sigrid Hartong
Sigrid Hartong*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Bamberg, Feldkirchenstr. 21, Bamberg96052, Germany
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on the discussion of global policy convergence through the implementation of “distributed governance” within the education policy sector. Here, the focus is directed at the emergence of national education standards (NES) as a simultaneous instrument of fair school control and performance increase. Both the US and Germany show a high traditional resistance to nationally centralised educational control, but experienced a massive transformation in this direction by the recent implementation of a national core curriculum initiative (National Education Standards in Germany and Common Core State Standards in the US). This article will rely on global governance and distributed governance research, focusing on the concept of “heterarchies”, to analyse the interplay of global and national contexts in the case of the rise of NES in the US and Germany, ultimately showing the concepts' contributions (and limits) to explain policy convergence.

Keywords

education policydistributed governanceheterarchyglobalisationnational education standards
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 10 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adick, C. (2009). World Polity – ein Forschungsprogramm und Theorierahmen zur Erklärung weltweiter Bildungsentwicklungen [World polity – a research agenda and theoretical framework for the explanation of global educational transformations]. In Koch, S. & Schemmann, M. (Eds.), Neo-Institutionalismus in der Erziehungswissenschaft [Neo-institutionalism in educational research] (pp. 258–291). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, L., Wiggs, M. D., & Briggs, D. (2012). Navigating assessment and collaboration with the Common Core State Standards. Englewood, CO: The Leadership and Learning Center.Google Scholar
Allmendinger, J., & Nikolai, R. (2010). Bildungs-und Sozialpolitik: Die zwei Seiten des Sozialstaats im internationalen Vergleich [Education and social policy. Two sides of the social state compared internationally]. Soziale Welt, 61, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altrichter, H., Brüsemeister, T., & Wissinger, J. (2007). Educational governance: Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem [Educational governance: Coordination and management in the educational system]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, J. G., & Guillemard, A.-M. (2005). Conclusion: Policy change, welfare regimes and active citizenship. In Andersen, J. G., Guillemard, A.-M., Jensen, P. H., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (Eds.), The changing face of welfare: Consequences and outcomes from a citizenship perspective (pp. 257–271). Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. (2007). Congress and the classroom: From the cold war to “no child left behind”. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Apple, M. W., Ball, S. J., & Gandin, L. A. (2010). The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Artelt, C., & Riecke-Baulecke, T. (2004). Bildungsstandards. Fakten, Hintergründe, Tipps [Educational standards. Facts, background, guidance]. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, S. J. (1998). Postmodernity and the fragmentation of welfare (pp. 187–203). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ball, S. J. (2007). Education Plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56, 747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J. (2009a). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the “competition state”. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J. (2009b). Academies in context: Politics, business and philanthropy and heterarchical governance. Management in Education, 3, 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J. (2009c). Beyond networks? A brief response to “which networks matter in education governance?” Political Studies, 3, 688–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J., & Olmedo, A. (2013). Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education, 54, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beech, J. (2009). Who is strolling through the global garden? International agencies and educational transfer. In Cowen, R., Kazamias, A. M., & Unterhalter, E. (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 341–357). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. (2005). Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! [Path dependence is not equally path dependence]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 34, 5–21.Google Scholar
Bogason, P., & Zølner, M. (2007). Methods for network governance research: An introduction. In Bogason, P. & Zolner, M. (Eds.), Methods in democratic network governance (pp. 1–20). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Social Theory, 1, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2004). The state nobility. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Brass, J. (2014). Reading standards as curriculum: The curricular and cultural politics of the common Core. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 11, 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, C. C., & Garrity, D. T. (2012). Opening the common core. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Caestle, F. G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., & Pierson, C. (2010). The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59, 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change? A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, C. T. (2004). From a nation at risk to no child left behind: National education goals and the creation of federal education policy. New York, NY: Teacher College.Google Scholar
Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: A focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 1, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (2006). Activation policies and the changing ethical foundations of welfare. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3784/1/activation_policies_(LSERO).pdfGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (2007). The ethics of welfare-to-work. Policy & Politics, 35, 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedering, K. (2010). Entscheidungsfindung in Bildungspolitik und Bildungspraxis [Decisionmaking in educational politics and educational practice]. In Altrichter, H. & Maag Merki, K. (Eds.), Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook new school governance] (pp. 63–80). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, H., Glismann, H., & Siemßen, S. J. (1994). Vocational training in Germany (Kiel Working Papers, p. 622). Kiel: Institut für Weltwirtschaft.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditton, H. (2009). Möglichkeiten eines Bildungspanels zur Steuerung im Bildungswesen [Options of an Educational Panel for Educational Governance]. In Tippelt, R. (Ed.), Steuerung durch Indikatoren [Governance by indicators] (pp. 127–141). Opladen: Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2006). Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edelmann, D., & Tippelt, R. (2008). Kompetenzentwicklung in der beruflichen Bildung und Weiterbildung [Competence development in vocational and further education]. In Prenzel, M., Gogolin, I., & Krüger, H.-H. (Eds.), Kompetenzdiagnostik [Competence diagnostics] (pp. 129–146). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esmark, A. (2007). Network management in the EU: The European commission as network manager. In Marcussen, M., & Torfling, J. (Eds.), Democratic network governance in Europe (pp. 252–292). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity press.Google Scholar
Exley, S., Braun, A., & Ball, S. J. (2011). Global education policy: Networks and flows. Critical Studies in Education, 52, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltes, T., & Paysen, M. (2005). Nationale Bildungsstandards. Von der Bildungs- zur Leistungspolitik [National education standards. From education to performance politics]. Hamburg: VSA Verlag.Google Scholar
Fend, H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule [New theory of schooling]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. (1993). International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy. International Organization, 47, 565–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitz, J., & Beers, B. (2002). Education management organisations and the privatisation of public education: A cross-national comparison of the USA and Britain. Comparative Education, 2, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, H. A. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values. Challenging the assault on teachers, students, & public education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Graßl, H. (2008). Ökonomisierung der Bildungsproduktion. Zu einer Theorie des Konservativen Bildungsstaats [Economisation in educational production: Towards a theory of the conservative education-state]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Greinert, W.-D. (1994). The “German system” of vocational education. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, E., & Serpieri, R. (2013). Privatising education policy-making in Italy: New governance and the reculturing of a welfarist education state. Education Inquiry, 3. Retrieved from http://www.education-inquiry.net/index.php/edui/article/view/22615Google Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 7, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartong, S. (2012a). Basiskompetenzen statt Bildung? Wie PISA die deutschen Schulen veraendert hat [Basic competences instead of education? How PISA changed schools in Germany]. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Hartong, S. (2012b). Overcoming resistance to change. PISA, school reform in Germany and the example of Lower Saxony. Journal of Educational Policy, 27, 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartong, S., & Münch, R. (2012). Der Wettlauf um PISA-Punkte: Gewinner, Verlierer, Illusionen [The race for PISA-scores: Winners, losers, illusions]. Paedagogische Korrespondenz, 46, 5–20.Google Scholar
Hartong, S., & Schwabe, U. (2013). Wie “Agenten des Wandels” deutsche Bildungspolitik transformierten – ein integratives Diffusionsmodell für die Prozesse PISA und Bologna [How German education policy is changed by agents of change – an integrative diffusion-model for processes introduced by the PISA- and Bologna-reforms]. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 3, 493–515.Google Scholar
Hega, G. M. (2011). Wohlfahrtsstaaten und Bildungspolitik. Nachzuegler, Vorreiter oder Ausreißer? Die Schweiz und die Vereinigten Staaten invergleichender Perspektive [Welfare states and education policy: Latecomers, pioneers, or outliers? Comparison of Switzerland and the United States]. In Schmid, J., Amos, K., Schrader, J., & Thiel, A. (Eds.), Welten der Bildung? [Educational worlds] (pp. 53–99). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hega, G. M., & Hokenmaier, K. G. (2002). The welfare state and education: A comparison of social and educational policy in advanced industrial societies. German Policy Studies, 1, 143–173.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K., Jörgens, H., & Knill, C. (2007). Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken [Transfer, diffusion, and convergence in politics]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P. N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media & Society, 4, 550–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobi, A., & Martens, K. (2007). Diffusion durch internationale Organisationen. Die Bildungspolitik der OECD [Diffusion by international organisations. The OECD education policy]. In Holzinger, K., Jörgens, H., & Knill, C. (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken [Transfer, diffusion, and convergence in politics] (pp. 247–70). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. H., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Active citizenship: The new face of welfare. In Goul Andersen, I. J., Guillemard, A. M., Jensen, P. H., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (Eds.), The changing face of welfare: Consequences and outcomes from a citizenship perspective (pp. 1–14). Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K., & Bird, K. (2000). “Partnership” as strategy: Public private relations in education action zones. British Educational Research Journal, 4, 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaestle, C. F. (2007). Federal education policy and the changing national polity of education, 1957–2007. In Kaestle, C. F., & Lodewick, A. E. (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform (pp. 17–40). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kato, J. (2003). Regressive taxation and the welfare state: Path dependence and policy diffusion. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirst, M. W. (2004). Turning points: A history of American school governance. In Epstein, N. (Ed.), Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy (pp. 14–41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Klieme, E., Avenarius, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gruber, H., Prenzel, M., … Tenorth, H.-E. (2003). Zur Entwicklung Nationaler Bildungsstandards [The development of national education standards]. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
Klijn, E.-H., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Meta-governance as network management. In Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 199–214). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KMK. (1995). Standards für den Mittleren Schulabschnuss in den Fächern Deutsch, Mathematik und erste Fremdsprache [Standards for the middle school examination in German, Mathematics and first foreign language]. Bonn: Author.Google Scholar
KMK. (1997). Grundsaetzliche Überlegungen zu Leistungsvergleichen innerhalb der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Konstanzer Beschluss. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 24.10.1997. [Konstanz resolution from Oct 24th, 1997, regarding international student assessment participation]. Bonn: Author.Google Scholar
KMK. (2004). Bildungssteuerung der KMK. Erlaeuterungen zur Konzeption und Entwicklung. [Educational Regulation by the KMK. Explanations about conception and development. München: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
KMK. (2006). Gesamtstrategie der Kultusministerkonferenz zum Bildungsmonitoring [KMK strategy for educational monitoring]. München: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal governance: Levels, modes, and orders of social-political interaction. In Pierre, J. (Ed.), Debating governance (pp. 138–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kovacs, P. E. (2010). The Gates foundation and the future of US “public” schools. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labaree, D. F. (2004). The trouble with Ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, L. (2013). Zwang zur freiwilligen Zusammenarbeit. Steuerungsinstrumente und interkanonale Governance in der schweizerischen Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung [Coercion for voluntary cooperation. Steering instruments and intercantonial governance in the Swiss teacher education]. Bern: Hep.Google Scholar
Leuze, K., Rusconi, A., & Martens, K. (2007). New arenas of education governance: The impact of international organizations and markets on educational policy making. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1997). The lessons of international education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 12, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingard, B., & Ozga, J. (2006). Globalisation, education policy and politics. In Lingard, B. & Ozga, J. (Eds.), The Routledge reader in education policy and politics (pp. 65–82). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lütz, S. (2007). Policy-transfer und policy-diffusion [Policy transfer and policy diffusion]. In Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (Eds.), Handbuch governance [Handbook governance] (pp. 132–142). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maranto, R., & McShane, M. Q. (2012). President Obama and education reform: The personal and the political. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J. (2006). Negri, hardt, distributed governance and open source software. Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 1. Retrieved from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/Article/122Google Scholar
Martens, K., Breiter, A., Idel, T.-S., Knipping, C., & Teltemann, J. (2013). Das “PISA Phänomen”: Ein Plädoyer für einen interdisziplinären Ansatz zur Erforschung von Bildungsproduktion im Kontext von Large-Scale-Assessments [The PISA-phenomenon: Addressing an interdisciplinary approach for the analysis of educational production in the context of large-scale-assesssments] (TranState Working Papers, no. 175), Bremen: University of Bremen.Google Scholar
Mehta, J. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merkens, H. (2006). Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungsforschung [Educational science and education policy research]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, H.-D. (2009). Institutionelle Isomorphie und Vielfalt – Zu einer überfälligen Korrektur in der Bildungsforschung [Institutional isomorphy and variety – About an urgent correction in education policy research]. In Koch, S., & Schemmann, M. (Eds.), Neo-Institutionalismus in der Erziehungswissenschaft [Neo-institutionalism in educational science] (pp. 292–307). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W. (1999). The changing cultural content on the nation state: A world society perspective. In Steinmetz, G. (Ed.), State/culture. state-formation after the cultural turn (pp. 123–141). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Hannan, M. T. (1976). National development and the world system: Educational, economic, and political change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., Krücken, G., & Kuchler, B. (2005). Weltkultur: Wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen [World culture and the penetration of western principles]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M., Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 4, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Mathis, W. J., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organizations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar
Mok, K. H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizational hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 1, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münch, R. (2009). Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritaeten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co [Global elites, local authorities: Education and science under the regime of PISA, McKinsey & Co.]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Munck, R. (2003). Neoliberalism, necessitarianism and alternatives in Latin America: There is no alternative (TINA)? Third World Quarterly, 3, 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NGA, CCSSO, & Achieve. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Obinger, H., & Starke, P. (2009). Are welfare states converging? Recent social policy developments in advanced OECD countries. In Dingeldey, I. & Rothgang, H. (Eds.), Governance of welfare state reform (pp. 113–141). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001). The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare: Understanding the changing geographies of social welfare provision. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, J. W., & Solga, H. (2010). Analyzing the nexus of higher education and vocational training in Europe: A comparative-institutional framework. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raidt, T. (2010). Ökonomische Perspektiven auf Bildung–Beobachtungen zu deutschen Widerstaenden [Economic perspectives on education – observations of German resistance]. In Barz, H. (Ed.), Handbuch Bildungsfinanzierung [Handbook of educational financing] (pp. 51–59). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). National curricula: World models and national historical legacies. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade: American education, 1945–1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common. The common core standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Arenas of standardizers. In Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 100–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheja, B. (2006). Der Wandel von Bildungssystemen am Beispiel von Deutschland und Polen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der PISA-Studie [The change of educational systems – an exemplary comparison of Germany and Poland with emphasis on the PISA-study]. Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Schindler, D. (2006). Die Rolle von Ideen und Deutungsmustern in der Politik: Wissenspolitologische Perspektiven auf Netzwerke [The role of ideas and interpretation patterns in politics: Knowledge perspectives on networks]. In Hollstein, B., & Straus, F. (Eds.), Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse [Qualitative network analysis] (pp. 99–123). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, J. (2010). Wohlfahrtsstaaten im Vergleich: Soziale Sicherungssysteme in Europa: Organisation, Finanzierung, Leistungen und Probleme [Welfare states in comparison: Social security in Europe: Organisation, financing, performances and problems]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. B. (2003). The emerging state leadership role in education reform: Notes of a participant observer. In Gordon, D. T. (Ed.), A nation reformed? American education after 20 years a nation at risk (pp. 131–151). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A., Dobbin, F., & Garrett, G. (2008). The global diffusion of markets and democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 3, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloane, P. F., & Dilger, B. (2005). The Competence Clash – Dilemmata bei der Übertragung des “Konzepts der nationalen Bildungsstandards” auf die berufliche Bildung [The competence clash – dilemmas of the adaption of NES in vocational education]. bwp@, 8.Google Scholar
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding policy borrowing and lending: Building comparative policy studies. In Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Waldow, F. (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. (2000). Think tank transnationalisation and non-profit. Analysis, advice and advocacy. Global Society, 2, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepe, M. (2007). Die Pfadabhaengigkeitsthese in der vergleichenden Wohlfahrtsstaatenforschung. Eine explorative Clusteranalyse staatlicher Altersvorsorge [Path-dependency theory in comparative welfare analysis. An explorative cluster analysis of public retirement provisions]. In Wagner, D., Lattemann, C., Kupke, S., & Legel, A. (Eds.), Governance-theorien oder governance als theorie? [Governance-theories or governance as theory?] (pp. 165–181). Berlin: wvb.Google Scholar
Tillmann, K.-J., Dedering, K., Kneuper, D., Kuhlmann, C., & Nessel, I. (2008). PISA als Bildungspolitisches Ereignis. Fallstudien in vier Bundeslaendern. [Pisa as an education policy event: Case studies of four federal states in Germany]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zanten, A. (2002). Educational change and new cleavages between head teachers, teachers and parents: Global and local perspectives on the French case. Journal of Education Policy, 17, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinovskis, M. A. (2009). From a nation at risk to no child left behind: National education goals and the creation of federal education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College.Google Scholar
Waldow, F. (2012). Standardisation and legitimacy: Two central concepts in research on educational borrowing and lending. In Steiner-Khamsi, G. & Waldow, F. (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education (pp. 411–427). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar