经合组织教育治理工具演变背后的博弈与逻辑

Politics and Reasons behind the Evolution of the OECD’s Educational Governing Tools

经济合作与发展组织自成立以来其教育治理工具经历了数次演变,体现了各方利益主体的博弈。透过历史与微观视角发现,第一阶段以欧美拉扯为特征,初始治理工具在美国的铺垫与引导下确立,美国势力受到北欧小国的抗衡;第二阶段欧美新自由主义的集体转向催生了经济价值取向的新治理工具,少数欧洲国家对工具的理念与指标进行“纠偏”;第三阶段,经济合作与发展组织企图纳入更多发展中国家的愿望孕育了新的治理工具,在欧美发达国家的主导、发展中国家的参与下适当提升了新治理工具的“情境适用性”。整体来看,经济合作与发展组织教育治理工具的形成与演变受到宏观政治环境与格局、中观国家实力、微观关键人物等不同层面要素的影响,其教育治理活动本质上遵循着大国主导的政治逻辑和理性主导的思维逻辑。而政府间国际组织的程序、规则、议程在一定程度上反映了弱势群体的诉求,需警惕的是追求确定性可能带来的教育趋同和应对未来不确定性能力的缺失。

Since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD)was formed in 1961,its governing tools in the field of education have undergone evolutionary changes that reflect the interplay between its various actors.By adopting a historical perspective and focusing on micro-level developments,this study identifies three periods in the OECD’s history.The first period was characterized by Euromerican tensions,as the U.S.forged and dictated the initial governing tools which were contested by the small Nordic nations.In the second period,the collective neo-liberal turn in the West had led to the formation of new tools driven by an economic imperative.Several European member states formed an intellectual opposition,challenging the measurement premises and parameters of PISA.Finally,in the third period,the OECD’s attempt to incorporate more developing countries necessitated improving the contextual relevance of PISA.The process,however,was dominated by Western countries,with developing nations taking a disadvantaged position.Overall,three levels of factors have shaped the evolution of the OECD’s educational governing tools:a broader political environment,national strength and key organisational figures.At the same time,the OECD’s governance activities are essentially dominated by major political powers and a rationalist logic;the procedures,rules and agendas of an intergovernmental organisation can be used to mediate their strong influence and allow the voices of more vulnerable groups to be heard.We caution,though,that the pursuit of certainty may lead to educational convergence and may impoverish our ability to deal with future uncertainties in global educational governance.