In 2018 the OECD assessed the concept of “global competence” for the first time as part of the triennial PISA assessments. For those not in the know, this is defined by the the organisation as “a multi-dimensional construct that requires a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values successfully applied to global issues or intercultural situations.”
Released in October 2020, the results of the assessment demonstrate social reproduction, with more powerful social groups benefiting from a framework developed by a small group of Western educators.
“Educators should be cautious in their enthusiasm to adopt and embed the framework in their own schools.”
Despite the power that the OECD holds, and the influence of the PISA assessments on government globally, educators should be cautious in their enthusiasm to adopt and embed the framework in their own schools.
The PISA assessments are administered on a three-year cycle, with tests in three literacy domains (mathematics, reading and science) and, since 2012, one cross-curricular competence per cycle. The cross-curricular competence is subject to selection based upon it providing information on how prepared students are for a) full participation in their society and b) lifelong learning as well as needing to be innovative.
Whenever a new cross-curricular domain is selected for assessment by PISA, it is subject to a development phase before it is piloted. Prior to 2018, cross-curricular competencies assessed by PISA include collaborative problem solving (2015) and creative problem solving (2012).
The selection of global competence for the 2018 cycle was justified with reference to continued digitalisation, global inequalities, migration and matters associated with developing communication technology. In contrast to the three literacy domains of the PISA assessments, the new cross-curricular domains lack a robust research base and introduce a new concept for assessment prior to universal consensus of the concept being achieved.
“The narrow definition propagates global elitism and the framework itself focuses on prejudices and xenophobia rather than on global issues.”
As a result, the issues with the 2018 framework are plentiful. At the time of release, “global competence” as a concept lacked universal consensus. Therefore, the definition now used by the OECD in the framework is what global competence is considered to be, rather than a starting point to inspire further discussion.
In addition, the narrow definition propagates global elitism and the framework itself focuses on prejudices and xenophobia rather than on global issues, with social and political issues absent from the framework entirely. Furthermore, while recognising the need to drive assessment methods forward, the OECD is a driver of free market education policy which can create contradictory and incompatible effects within national education systems.
The use of only a small group of experts in the development of the framework (seven in the first stage and only four in the second stage, along with a project team from Pearson) has resulted in a biased and “un-global” framework for assessing global competence.
“The OECD is a driver of free market education policy which can create contradictory and incompatible effects within national education systems.”
The assessment was only administered digitally, with those countries unable to participate digitally thus unable to participate at all, which is rather ironic given the intention of the framework. Only 27 countries and economies participated in the assessment, and only 11 of those 27 were OECD countries, suggesting that the expert panel who developed the framework, while representative of the OECD, may not have been representative of those who participated.
There has also been criticism in the academic literature of the value that ranking countries and economies to encourage competition has in enhancing global competencies. Additionally, there is no mention in the framework or results about whether global competence is a relative phenomenon in which achieving competence relies on others not achieving it.
More than thirty countries opted out of the assessment, despite participating in the assessments for the three literacy domains. Various reasons were given for non-participation, including not wanting to place an additional burden on schools and some suspecting a hidden agenda.
“More than thirty countries opted out of the assessment, despite participating in the assessments for the three literacy domains.”
The original framework and assessment were written in English and subsequently translated into 90 languages and dialects. PISA assessments are administered in the language of instruction, and the translation from English combined with the general lack of visual clues and emphasis on reading in the assessments could have disadvantaged many countries and economies, particularly countries with high numbers of migrants who may not be native speakers. This would have been exacerbated by global competence being a new domain that hasn’t been embedded into education systems.
The consequences of these decisions for the resulting framework and assessment are serious. Educational reform lies with those who have power, which does not always serve the people most impacted. To assess a domain such as global competence which is connected to cultures, without employing a diverse group of experts who are trained in unconscious bias in the development phase has meant that a rhetoric surrounding global competence has developed which enhances the position of the global elite.
Using the development of this domain to include the underrepresented voice of the global south is a missed opportunity. Unsurprisingly, the countries and economies that performed best in the assessment were all part-anglophone, with Singapore, Canada, Hong Kong (China) and Scotland (UK) at the top end of the table. At the bottom end were Thailand, Panama, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Morocco and the Philippines.
“Using the development of this domain to include the underrepresented voice of the global south is a missed opportunity.”
The critique outlined here can serve as an example of how new initiatives, policies and assessments should be considered ahead of rushing to implement them in schools where there may not be a national education system to follow.
It is easy to be inspired into action when an exciting new initiative is launched, particularly from an organisation such as the OECD, but ensuring that anything new being introduced will enhance learning for our students, rather than provide a biased view based on Western values and viewpoints, is key. While many international schools do represent a global elite, we should take the opportunity to educate for inclusion and equality rather than further propagating social reproduction of the elite.
This article first appeared in the latest issue of International School Magazine, out now.