Rethinking Schooling for the 21st Century

As noted in Part I, the compilation of this report has involved the extensive coding
of policy and curricular documents from countries across Asia. These documents
are referenced and cited comprehensively below. As discussed in Chapter 2, the
coding data are useful in showing which concepts embedded in SDG Target 4.7
have been absorbed by the policy discourses of education systems in the 22
Asian countries covered by the current study. It shows, comparatively across
the countries in terms of weightage given to each sub-category, which concepts
have been mainstreamed at least at the level of national education policy, which
concepts remain to be more fully integrated, and which concepts are absent.
However, great caution is required in interpreting the data generated through
the coding exercise.
Firstly, official ‘vision statements’ for education policy or school curricula often
serve a largely symbolic purpose, signalling to the media, the public, businesses
— and, at times, organisations such as UNESCO whose seal of approval is often
valued by government officials — that policymaking is in line with the most
‘advanced’ thinking. But a more accurate indication of official priorities for
education is likely to come not from policy documents or curricular guidelines,
but from examination syllabi, state-approved textbooks and the teachers’ guides
that accompany them (see Adamson, 2004, for China). This is especially so in a
region such as East Asia, where state control over textbook approval is relatively
strict and centralised, where textbooks and public examinations tend to be very
closely aligned, and where both occupy a central role in teaching and learning.
While formal guidelines constitute the ‘public face’ of curricular policy, the true
character of official priorities is thus more likely to be revealed in the advice
or recommendations of ministerial textbook screening committees. Indeed,
both the importance and political sensitivity of such committees is reflected in
the fact that their proceedings are almost always highly confidential and thus
unavailable to the researcher.
A second set of issues that indicate caution in interpreting public statements
of curricular policy relates to the danger of assuming alignment between the
values expressed in such documents, and those espoused by teachers, parents
and students. Even where educational authorities genuinely aspire to foster
student ‘autonomy’, ‘creativity’ and appreciation of ‘diversity’, for example, little
thought may have been given to how actually to achieve such a pedagogical
transformation, let alone reconcile such aims with conflicting aspirations (i.e. the
promotion of uncritical patriotism and moral ‘correctness’). While some teachers
may share aspirations to render learning less intensely competitive and more
student-centred, they may do so for reasons rather different from those that
animate policymakers. And many will remain highly sceptical of the prospects
of achieving greater ‘student-centredness’ in a context of largely unreformed
public assessment systems, large class sizes and persistent pressure from
principals, parents and students themselves to achieve ‘results’. Even insofar
as officially promulgated ‘courses of study’ truly reflect government aims, the
60
Part II: Sub-Regional Syntheses