benavot2002

E D U C AT I O N F O R L E A R N I N G
TO LIVE TOGETHER
A C R I T I C A L A N A LY S I S O F
C O M PA R AT I V E R E S E A R C H 1
Aaron Benavot
Initial considerations
Educational expansion and school curricula have become the modern panacea to address
societal ills (often known as ‘challenges’). To facilitate economic growth and technological competitiveness, countries teach mathematics, sciences and computer literacy.
To combat unemployment, they underscore job training and occupationally relevant
skills. To reduce high birth-rates, developing countries expand educational opportunities for girls and establish courses in family planning and human sexuality. To
strengthen national integration, countries emphasize national languages, history and
geography. To reduce environmental degradation, they establish classes in ecology or
environmental studies. To enhance the moral commitment and ethical orientation of
their citizens, they emphasize religious instruction, moral education or social studies.
To deepen awareness of democratic principles and increase political participation,
they expand civics education. In order to cope with the ramifications of globalization
(the transformed workplace, new technologies, the knowledge boom and the diversification of information sources), countries promote interdisciplinary subjects, inculcate
‘new’ skills and competencies, address issues of cultural diversity and support lifelong
Original language: English
Aaron Benavot (Israel)
Senior lecturer in sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Formerly an assistant professor at the University of Georgia (USA). He has co-authored two books, School knowledge
for the masses (with John Meyer and David Kamens) and Law and the shaping of public education (with David Tyack and Thomas James), as well as numerous articles in leading journals
in educational sociology and comparative education. His research has examined patterns in official
school curricula, the effects of education on economic development and democratization, and
the origins and expansion of mass education. e-mail: [email protected].
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
52
Aaron Benavot
learning. In short, education has become a universal cure-all, an elixir that, if taken
in regular doses according to standardized prescriptions, is hoped to solve a multitude of national woes and societal challenges.
Comparative educational research, however, does not substantiate this overall picture
– to say the least. For most of the aforementioned claims, there is a very limited body
of research and many of its conclusions are of uncertain significance and/or dubious
validity. Among the few societal outcomes in which comparative analyses have accumulated (e.g., economic development, labour force participation, fertility, political
participation), clear-cut evidence substantiating the assumed powerful improving effects
of education is often lacking (see, for example, Bledsoe et al., 1999; Fuller & Rubinson,
1992; Chabbott & Ramirez, 2000; Kerckhoff, 2000). Yet, despite the inconclusive
nature of existing research – and, most importantly, regardless of the scientific evidence
put forward – optimistic arguments and policy blueprints that link formal education
and curricular contents to desirable societal outcomes have become a pervasive feature
of the global educational landscape (Chabbott, 1996). For international educational
organizations, national ministries of education, policy analysts and educational experts,
schooling has come to be seen as the preferred solution for a host of social problems.
Although in reality, schooling may or may not bring the presumed societal benefits,
the belief that education is crucial to achieve important economic, political and social
goals is widely promulgated and increasingly institutionalized worldwide.
Given this imbalanced situation, it is legitimate to ask how policy-oriented international organizations involved in educational affairs should respond. Should they,
regardless of the limited evidence we have, simply continue their advocacy role and
promote school expansion and ‘modern’ curricula? Should they rather encourage more
rigorous comparative research? Or should they develop a more discerning – even sceptical – attitude towards mainstream policies as well as towards ‘innovative’ educational
projects and reforms?
More specifically, since the curriculum is so central to the increasingly prolonged
school experiences of young people around the globe, what questions related to curricular contents should be raised and debated, and how can comparative research
contribute to this debate? For example, is it realistic to expect that school curricula
can be designed and implemented as effective responses to the ‘challenges’ of globalization, however these may be defined? Can curricular contents, in isolation from parallel
changes in families and communities, engender and sustain in young people attitudes
of empathy, tolerance and even respect towards the ‘other’ or the ‘foreigner’? Can we
expect school curricula to facilitate mutual understanding and coexistence between
culturally and religiously diverse communities, nations and civilizations? How might
the impact of school curricula on individual pupils, communities or whole societies,
whether short-term or medium-term, be evaluated, and by whom?
Conceptual clarifications
With an eye to facilitating dialogue and discussion between researchers and policymakers on these questions, I should like to put forward two sets of conceptual
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
53
clarifications. The first specifies the nature of the causal linkages typically assumed
between education and curricular contents on the one hand and desirable societal
outcomes on the other. The second distinguishes the specific components of formal
schooling whose societal effects are highlighted in contemporary educational discourse.
CAUSAL LINKAGES BETWEEN EDUCATION AND SOCIETAL
CHANGE
The basic model for the key causal assumptions supporting the view that school structures and curricular contents affect a wide range of societal outcomes can be described
as follows. First, as a result of systematic (and usually state-organized) educational structures and curricular policies, schools more or less effectively: a) expose young people
to culturally valued knowledge; b) teach basic as well as advanced cognitive and linguistic skills; c) inculcate important values, attitudes and normative behavioural patterns;
and d) help students construct viable occupational orientations and life plans. Second,
the changes effected in young people by these intended school-based processes are lasting
rather than transitory; otherwise it would be difficult to justify the enormous public
investment in formal schooling. Third, as a consequence of their improved functioning as adults in various spheres of society (the labour market, political system, family,
home, community), educated (i.e., previously schooled) individuals add social and
economic value to the society at large. In other words, the individual-level changes
occurring in educated persons can be aggregated. In general, then, the greater the
proportion of the adult population that has been schooled and exposed to valued
curricular contents, the greater their impact in generating viable solutions to societal
challenges and problems.
Variations of this basic model, which assume causal linkages between education
and social change, have been shown to permeate contemporary educational policies
and legislation (see, for example, Boli, 1997; Fiala & Lansford, 1987; McNeely,
1995; Meyer, 1977). They can be found, explicit or implicit, in statements advanced
by policy analysts, educators, legislators and community leaders whose ideological or
political backgrounds are often very different. In addition, national and international
educational organizations frequently justify their policy recommendations and
aid allocations by arguments embedded in this model (see Lockheed & Verspoor,
1991).
For a researcher interested in elucidating the macro-societal nexus between education, curriculum and society, such a model provides a series of potentially falsifiable
propositions and hypotheses, which can be tested utilizing various methodological tools
and research designs. However, not all the relationships depicted in this model have
received the same degree of scholarly scrutiny. Although I cannot claim an exhaustive
knowledge of relevant literature (especially in non-English publications), I think it is
fair to say that the vast majority of comparative research has been (and continues to
be) focused on the first causal sequence – namely, the impact of educational structures, curricular contents and specific educational policies on academic achievement
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
FIGURE 1. Presumed causal linkages between educational reform/curriculum and desired societal outcomes.
54
Aaron Benavot
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
55
as well as on other pupil-level outcomes such as skills, behaviour patterns and
attitudes.
To assess the second causal relationship requires a longitudinal research design, which
is costly, time-consuming and often at odds with the short-term realities of policy
implementation and governmental funding. Not surprisingly, few prospective studies
– comparative or otherwise – track young people at different points in school and
then through various ‘stages’ of the course of adult life.2 It is true there are many
retrospective and cross-sectional studies, especially in the area of economics and
sociology of education. However, while such studies typically elicit information about
the respondents’ educational pasts (years of schooling, qualifications obtained, etc.),
they rarely ask questions about the courses, subjects and pedagogical practices – that
is, the curricular contents – to which these people have been exposed. Economists
and demographers assume, for example, that years of schooling or credentials obtained
are more important in determining, say, labour market position, worker productivity
or fertility behaviour than the curricular contents and emphases that were experienced during school attendance. Only when bundles of curricular content become
institutionalized in distinct educational programmes or tracks (such as academic, vocational, classical, social science, or mathematics and science), do we learn about an
individual’s curricular past.
The third causal relationship in the basic model assumes, quite uncritically, that when
there are more competent, productive or efficacious adults, this necessarily adds up
to a more modern economy, polity or society. While this may be a valid characterization of some European and North American societies, phenomena such as the ‘brain
drain’ and rampant consumerism in other parts of the world should make us aware
that while more educated individuals usually present rational effort to advance their
own personal interests, these do not necessarily coincide with collective or societal
interests.
Overall, then, key causal linkages depicted in this model remain problematic. This
is due to a) the lack of comparative research; b) the uneven quality of previous studies;
c) the inconsistencies of reported findings; and d) a tendency to mix levels of analysis,
such as the individual and the societal, which need to be distinguished and held
apart.
TRENDS IN ANALYSIS
In arguments that link school processes with societal outcomes we can distinguish
two independent, though related, discourses.3 The first focuses on the quantitative
expansion of education, especially the universalization of mass education. This undoubtedly represents the dominant theme in twentieth-century educational discourse and can
be seen in efforts to extend schooling across within age cohorts (from pre-school education to lifelong learning) as well as to equalize educational access for children from
different social groups. In international forums, in particular, issues pertaining to
educational expansion and unequal access have triggered (and continue to trigger) a
wide range of reform efforts and policy debates. The main claim (often implicit) is
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
56
Aaron Benavot
that more formal schooling (meaning, the extension of compulsory education and, sometimes, more instructional hours) to more young people in each age group (meaning,
increased enrolment rates) will bring about, through the causal sequences noted above,
important societal outcomes.
The other discourse emphasizes the contents of education, discusses the bodies of
valued cultural knowledge that should be selected and organized systematically in school
curricula. The oft unstated central claim is that specific school subjects and curricular emphases can clearly contribute to the creation of a more developed, competitive,
democratic or sustainable society. Whereas the first theme maintains predominance
in policy-oriented and scholarly discussions, interest in the curricular contents of schools
have had a more discontinuous history. It was during the heyday of European nationalism in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries that the most considerable
attention was devoted to the cultural knowledge deemed appropriate for young people
in expanding national school systems (Maynes, 1985; Goodson, 1993; Glenn, 1988).
Participants in battles over the substance of the curriculum – school subjects to be
included (or excluded), syllabus topics, textbooks, pedagogical methods and testing practices – included university scholars, labour union leaders, religious authorities, parents
and prominent educators (Goodson, 1993; Kleibard, 1986; Popkewitz, 1987). Social
theorists like Durkheim and Waller discussed curriculum-related questions in their
analyses of modern education (Durkheim, 1977 [1938]; Waller, 1961 [1932]).
Curricular issues were also incorporated in many of the recommendations issued by
UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education during its first twenty-five years
(UNESCO, 1979). In short, it was at times when mass systems of education were
expanding in Europe and North America that interest in curricular contents was both
salient and widespread.
In the decades following the Second World War concern over the substance of the
curriculum, especially among social theorists and researchers, disappeared almost entirely.
The main outlines of the school curriculum became, some argue, an obvious, takenfor-granted feature in the drive for modernity (McEneaney & Meyer, 2000). Instead,
scholarly interest converged on issues which had little to do with the nature and organization of school curricula. For example, among sociologists of education, two issues
predominated:
1.
One was a focus on the latent or hidden curriculum, that is, the socializing or
stratifying effects of the meaning patterns and messages that pupils experience
by the very nature of school and classroom life (Lynch, 1989). One approach
was to analyze the school’s contribution to the internalization of normative
values central to adult adjustment and functioning (Dreeben, 1968). Another was
to highlight how, through differential socialization, the curriculum effectively
reproduces prevailing capitalist class structures (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Apple,
1979). Significantly, the holders of both points of view avoided analysis of the
explicit subject matter that schools actually intend to transmit via the manifest
curriculum.
2.
A second area of focus was on social inequalities stemming from curricular differentiation. Since schools tend to classify and sort students into ability groups
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
57
and tracks, this produces considerable curricular differentiation. This differentiation in turn creates unequal learning opportunities – as pupils are exposed to
differential educational resources, bodies of knowledge and content coverage –
which subsequently reinforce inequalities in educational outcomes, credential
attainment and occupational positions (Oakes, Gamoran & Page, 1992). Most
research on this issue employs gross curricular distinctions (academic vs. vocational; college-bound, general or remedial); some studies examine actual pupil
course-taking (Garet & Delany, 1988). However, few assess the processes
antecedent to school-based curricular differentiation or the influence of course
offerings and content exposure on macro-level social and economic inequalities.
In recent decades, new approaches examining the substantive content of the curriculum
have emerged, some of which assess the consequences of curricular contents at either
the individual or societal level. I briefly present relevant findings and conclusions
from these approaches in the sections below.
A global look at educational expansion
Educational discourses, however powerful, do not themselves create educational ‘facts’.
Nevertheless, they certainly help to legitimize the construction and implementation
of national policies on mass school expansion and the organization of curricular structures. A cursory examination of global educational developments illustrates the apparent
– some would claim, considerable – influence of these discourses on contemporary educational realities.
Take, for example, the question of educational expansion. UNESCO (2000) reports
that by 1997 more than 1.25 billion young people – or 21% of the world’s population – were enrolled in schools worldwide (from pre-primary through tertiary-level
institutions). Global enrolment rates had reached historically unprecedented levels: at
the primary level, 95% of the relevant school age population were formally enrolled
in school; at the secondary level, the rate stood at 60%; and at the tertiary level,
17% (UNESCO, 2000, pp. 115–116). Enrolments in pre-primary classes also increased
rapidly (see O’Connor, 1988). Concurrently, 90% of all independent countries had
passed compulsory education laws requiring children to attend school for a given
time period: anywhere between four (Saõ Tome and Principe) and thirteen (the
Netherlands) years. Worldwide, the mean duration of compulsory schooling (which
typically begins at age 5 or 6) stood at 8.2 years and increasingly defined the social
boundaries of childhood and adolescence (Ramirez & Vantresca, 1992).4 Moreover,
countries mandated that children spend, on average, about 750 hours each year in
primary-school classrooms (Amadio, 1998; UNESCO:IBE, 2000). In retrospect, the
latter half of the twentieth century was an exceptionally remarkable period in the growth
of mass schooling and its systemization under state educational bureaucracies, even
among the relatively poor, newly independent nations of the so-called Third World
(Fuller, 1991; Meyer, Ramirez & Soysal, 1992). While differences in enrolment rates
between more and less developed countries remain, the global expansion of schooling
in the post-Second World War period is, indeed, a ‘world educational revolution’ and
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
58
Aaron Benavot
TABLE 1. Proportion of countries worldwide requiring instruction in curricular subjects at the
primary school level (grades 1–6), 1920–1986
Curricular subject area
Historical period
Language education (all types)
• National or local languages
• Official or foreign languages
Mathematics
Natural sciences
Social sciences (all types)
• History
• Geography
• Civics
• Social studies
Aesthetic education (art, music,
dance, handicrafts)
Religious or moral education
• Religious education
• Moral education
Physical education
Hygiene/Health education
Practical subjects/vocational education
1920–1945
(n = 43–48)
1946–1969
(n = 73–82)
1970–1986
(n = 73–82)
100
097
019
100
081
098
082
087
038
011
100
092
060
100
092
096
071
072
035
028
100
092
061
100
100
100
045
043
030
061
086
078
054
032
089
035
086
097
077
057
028
097
038
072
099
075
059
028
096
042
068
n = number of countries.
Source: Adapted from Meyer et al., 1992.
owes much to the dominance of this theme in educational discourse (Meyer et al., 1977;
Boli, 1997).
About the curricular contents of national educational systems, and how they have
changed over time, considerably less is known. In part this stems from a deep-seated
assumption, widely held by comparative education scholars and international professionals, that school curricula fundamentally reflect national priorities or distinct cultural
worldviews, and that consequently cross-national comparisons of such curricula have
little validity (Holmes & McLean, 1989; Cummings, 1999). Furthermore, studies highlighting historical changes in the organization of educational knowledge tend to
emphasize ‘internal’ societal actors (e.g., national political stakeholders, economic elites,
academics and education specialists) who struggle and compete among themselves to
define the contents of the official curriculum (Goodson, 1995; Kleibard, 1986). Within
the framework of such studies, broad comparative research on school curricula is of
limited value.
It is quite certain that countries vary considerably in the topics, themes and pedagogical practices that are featured in the teaching of school subjects. However, the
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
38.2
13.5
24.2
00.5
17.7
07.0
07.8
04.5
03.3
08.5
04.6
03.8
00.8
05.9
00.9
07.3
Language (all types)
• National, local lang.
• Official lang.
• Foreign lang.
Mathematics
Natural sciences
Social sciences (all types)
• History, geography & civics
• Social studies
Aesthetic education
Religious & moral education
• Religious education
• Moral education
Physical education
Hygiene/health education
Practical subjects/vocational education
36.8
31.8
00.0
04.9
16.6
06.7
06.4
02.6
03.9
07.7
12.0
11.8
00.7
06.3
01.8
02.4
Mid-East/
North Africa
(n = 15–18)
36.7
27.3
07.0
02.4
17.5
08.1
08.7
02.6
06.0
09.5
06.1
03.0
02.9
05.8
01.5
04.1
Asia
(n = 17–19)
n = number of countries (interval).
* The West includes Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
Source: Adapted from Meyer et al., 1992.
Sub-Saharan
Africa
(n = 28–29)
Subject
24.4
18.1
03.8
00.4
18.6
11.3
13.1
04.3
08.7
08.0
03.4
02.2
01.0
07.4
02.5
09.5
Latin
America
(n = 14–17)
34.7
18.1
14.2
00.7
20.7
07.5
12.0
04.3
07.2
07.4
02.5
02.2
00.8
05.3
02.9
03.2
Caribbean
(n = 9–10)
37.4
30.3
01.9
05.1
20.5
07.5
06.3
06.3
00.0
10.4
00.0
00.0
00.0
09.4
00.3
06.6
Eastern
Europe
(n = 9)
34.1
27.7
03.5
02.2
18.5
06.4
09.0
03.3
05.0
13.5
05.0
04.7
00.2
09.2
00.5
00.7
West*
(n = 18–22)
TABLE 2. Mean percentage of total instructional time allocated to subjects in the primary school curriculum, grades 1–6, in 1970–1986
A critical analysis of comparative education research
59
60
Aaron Benavot
basic categories and means by which countries organize the educational knowledge they
intend to transmit to young people at different educational levels and in different school
types are standardized to a surprising degree. (Official weekly timetables that define
the subjects to be taught and time allocations per subject are found already in many
nineteenth-century reports.) Yet, despite the relative availability of such curricular information, only one major cross-national study of primary and secondary curricula
(sponsored by UNESCO) was published prior to the 1980s (Dottrens, 1962;
UNESCO:IBE, 1960). Since then, comparative data on official curricular policies
and emphases have been collected, reported and analyzed by scholars and international organizations alike (e.g., Travers & Westbury, 1989; Pelgrum, Voogt & Plomp,
1995; Benavot et al., 1991; Kamens, Meyer & Benavot, 1996; Amadio, 1998;
UNESCO:IBE, 2000).
Key findings emerging from the comparative study of official school curricula include
(see tables below).
1.
At the primary level, most educational knowledge is defined in six subject areas
that are taught nearly universally: language, mathematics, natural science, ‘social
sciences’, aesthetic education and physical education. These school subjects represent the core curriculum of primary education and typically receive between
80% and 90% of all instructional time during the first six years of compulsory
schooling. Several other subjects – religious or moral education, health education,
practical skills or vocational education – are taught in many national school
systems, but their limited curricular presence is more contingent on historical
or cultural conditions.
2.
Among the set of core subjects noted above, most countries’ primary curricula
place special emphasis on language education and mathematics. On average, a
third of all instructional time in primary schools is devoted to language instruction (about 25% to national or, in some cases, local languages, and 8% to
official or foreign languages). Mathematics is allocated about one-fifth of total
instructional time. The mean instructional time devoted to the arts, natural
science, physical education and the ‘social sciences’ is at, or just below, 10% for
each subject-area.
3.
These curricular structures have remained remarkably stable during the twentieth century and there are clear indications of increasing tendency towards unified
standards and homogenity. In addition, certain longitudinal trends have been
discovered: for example, the proportion of instructional time devoted to ‘modern’
subjects such as mathematics, natural sciences and foreign languages has increased
(Kamens & Benavot, 1991; Cha, 1991; McEneaney, 1998), and the teaching
of history, geography and civics as separate subjects has been reduced in favour
of interdisciplinary ‘social studies’ (Wong, 1991).
4.
While the structural organization of primary-school curricula has remained fairly
stable, the specific contents of school subjects have experienced dramatic shifts
toward, among other things, individualism, child-centrism, a more rationalized
polity and protection of natural environment (McEneaney & Meyer, 2000). In
particular, transnational elements have become more pervasive in history and social
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
61
studies (Frank et al., 2000) and civic instruction has increasingly shifted its
focus to the ‘postnational citizen’, actively involved in world affairs (Rauner, 1998).
5.
The link between the degree of industrialization or economic development of a
nation and its curricular emphases is rather weak. There are, however, several
interesting regional variations: for example, a greater emphasis on language
education in sub-Saharan Africa, much less of one in Latin America; slightly more
mathematics in Eastern Europe and the Caribbean; more natural and social
sciences in Latin America; more religious education in the Middle East and North
Africa, while almost none in the former communist Eastern Europe; and more
aesthetic and physical education in OECD countries.
6.
At the upper secondary level, classical programmes and tracks as well as the
study of classical languages have declined in all world regions since the 1930s.
The one region in which they are still relatively prominent (although it presents
no exception to the general trend) is Europe. On the other hand, comprehensive programmes and specialized mathematics and science curricula have evolved
in most world regions (Kamens, Meyer & Benavot, 1996).
7.
At present, there appear to be two well-established general modes of organizing
academically oriented upper secondary education. The first is a comprehensive
school programme involving a measure of course-selection by students, whereas
in the other framework students are channelled into specialized programmes of
study (e.g., mathematics and science, humanities, law), emphasizing distinctive
substantive content. The latter approach mode typically dominates in systems
where classical programmes were once strong.
8.
Curricular organization and emphases tend to follow the types of academic
secondary programmes found in the upper secondary system. In other words,
programmes labelled as ‘comprehensive’, ‘mathematics and science’, ‘social sciences’
or ‘classical’ contain subjects and curricular emphases that reflect the name or
label applied to the programme. This is true for all world regions. For example,
instructional time in classical languages is declining because ‘classical’ curricular
programmes are disappearing. Mathematics and science programmes, on the other
hand, have grown and usually contain about twice as many class periods devoted
to the study of these subjects as compared to other programmes.
Overall, recent comparative research illustrates the growing isomorphism of national
school curricula. Official statements of subjects to be taught and time emphases, mainly
at the primary level and, to a lesser degree, at the upper secondary level, are increasingly standardized worldwide. These trends not only underscore the predominance of
the nation-state as the site at which school curricula are constructed and sanctioned,
but also the influence of international organizations, professional elites and academic
experts in diffusing standardized models and prescriptions of appropriate school
knowledge and curricular organization (Meyer et al., 1997; McNeely, 1995; Schafer,
1999).
It is important to keep in mind, however, that even before prominent international organizations such as UNESCO, the World Bank and OECD were established,
influential transnational forces brought about a considerable degree of curricular stanProspects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
62
Aaron Benavot
dardization. For example, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, educational scholars regularly performed visits to foreign educational systems – mainly in
continental Europe, the United Kingdom and North America – and consequently
submitted extensive reports and recommendations highlighting what might be referred
to today as ‘best practices.’ International educational fairs and exhibitions also contributed to ‘cultural borrowing’ and the diffusion of specific educational policies and
practices. Undoubtedly, the establishment of colonial educational systems, in which
‘suitable’ curricular contents were imposed on native pupils and adapted in light of
metropolitan school systems, has also played a part in growing international isomorphism of school curricula, which continued even after the declarations of independence
of the former colonies.
In short, the evidence suggests that prior to recent trends of increased economic
and political integration of nation-states, of quickened scientific and technological
progress, and of the heightened power of transnational organizations and multinational companies – a process commonly referred to as globalization – the curricular
structures of educational systems were remarkably similar, at least with respect to official
curricular intentions.
Alternative analytic frameworks
This section briefly reviews additional approaches to the comparative study of the school
curriculum that have emerged in recent decades. In particular it calls attention to the
contributions (and limitations) of these research programmes with an eye to assessing
the impact of curricular contents.
CURRICULUM AND ACHIEVEMENT
Since the 1960s, many large scale comparative studies of educational achievement
have been carried out, mainly under the auspices of the International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and, more recently, by sponsors of
the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IEAP).5 This body of research
documents significant inter- and intra-national differences in the cognitive outcomes
of schooling, as exemplified in students’ scores on standardized achievement tests, at
different grade/age levels and in major school subjects.
A noteworthy contribution of these studies has been the analytical distinction
between the official, the implemented and the attained curriculum;6 the operative
employment of this distinction in comparative educational research; and the general
finding that the official and implemented curricula serve as important mechanisms
in accounting for between-country differences in pupil achievement (Travers &
Westbury, 1989; Harmon et al., 1997). Of special significance, given the concentration of previous comparative work on the official, or intended, curriculum, is the
growing focus on the implemented curriculum. In these studies, the implemented
curriculum is typically defined as either: a) ‘content coverage’ (the proportion of what
is supposed to be taught in a mandated school subject that is actually covered by teachers
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
63
in individual classrooms); or b) the ‘opportunity to learn’ (the percentage of students
who have been exposed to required subject matter as operationalized in a set of test
items). An important implication of this comparative research programme is that any
attempt to assess, at the individual level, behavioural or dispositional outcomes stemming
from the exposure of pupils to curricular contents should seriously consider classroom, school or system-wide variation in what actually gets taught.
Having said this, I want to note at least two important limitations of cross-national
achievement studies: these consist, first, in understanding the classroom as the main
analytical site to assess the implemented curriculum, and second, in examining school
subjects as isolated units.7 Let me elaborate.
Since presumably most learning (as well as changes in pupil attitudes and behaviour)
occurs in classrooms, it logically follows that the degree to which teachers adhere to
administrative directives defining intended curricular contents and proper pedagogical practices in classrooms is a key variable for assessing learning outcomes.8 However,
while classrooms are undoubtedly important sites for the unequal production of curricular content, they are nested within schools as well as within other organizational
layers (e.g., districts, regions, nation-states) – a fact that affects curriculum implementation. At the school level, in particular, authorized actors make decisions that
mediate between the wider system where official curricular guidelines are developed
and the classroom where actual instruction occurs. Curriculum-related decisions made
at the school level effectively enable or constrain classroom instruction. For example,
schools may decide to exclude, redefine or de-emphasize a mandated subject, whereas
new subjects or curricular activities may be incorporated. Such changes alter the
distribution of curricular contents because of the ‘zero-sum’ nature of available instructional time. Moreover, school-based decisions to expand or discontinue the hierarchical
sorting of pupils into ability groups can affect the coverage of required course syllabi.
These issues are becoming especially salient in light of changing patterns of governance and finance in many national educational systems (Cummings & Riddell, 1994).
Owing to educational decentralization and privatization, local schools are acquiring
greater flexibility and maneuvering space in organizing the educational knowledge
they impart and more autonomy in relation to official curricular directives (e.g., OECD,
2000, pp. 242–247). Schools may decide to alter the distribution of weekly instructional time or repackage educational contents. In this sense, the curriculum that schools
put into practice not only reflects the directives of central or regional authorities, but
also a complex array of social forces: local conditions, institutionalized rules, individual world views and collective decision-making processes (Benavot & Resh, 2001).
In short, as control over curricular decisions becomes less centralized and educational
authority devolves to sub-national administrative agents, local schools become a critical
site for the definition of actual curricular contents.
An additional limitation of comparative studies of content coverage and educational achievement is that they invariably concentrate on one (sometimes two) curricular
subjects. As such, they incorrectly assume that subject emphases and coverage are
relatively independent of one another. In reality, though, the allocation of instructional time in schools (typically a ‘fixed’ resource) plays an important role in determining
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
64
Aaron Benavot
content coverage in classrooms. If schools decide to devote more instructional time
to, for example, mathematics and science (highly valued subjects), this often reduces
time available to less valued subjects, say, in the arts or the humanities. Such schoolbased decisions typically involve curricular tradeoffs: related subjects may be emphasized
in tandem, and institutionally weak subjects like art or music education may be
sacrificed to open up curricular time for other subjects. In short, content coverage in
one subject may be affected by changes to the overall distribution of curricular content
in weekly timetables, especially in cases where there is a relatively fixed amount of
instructional resources to be allocated. The interdependence of subject emphases in
school curricula – usually overlooked in comparative studies of academic achievement
– may determine the impact of ‘innovative’ curricular programmes emphasizing, for
example, active citizenship, multiculturalism or mutual tolerance.
COMPARATIVE INDICATORS
Growing interest in school quality and effectiveness, especially the organizational environment in which learning takes place, has stimulated renewed efforts to conceptualize
and measure the ‘black box’ of teaching and learning processes situated between system
inputs and educational outcomes. Concurrent with the ‘third wave’ of IEA studies (especially the unprecedented Third International Mathematics and Science Study), the
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation affiliated with OECD and the EUsponsored EUROSTAT have developed comparable measures of curricular intentions
and policies (OECD/CERI, 1992; 1994; 1995a; 1995b; European Commission, 2000).
In their recent publications, these organizations report a variety of curriculum indicators: for example, the intended yearly instructional time for pupils at different age
levels; the distribution of instructional time by subject area; the extent to which subjects
are required or optional; foreign language requirements; the prevalence of institutionalized streams or tracks; and nationwide examination practices. In light of the previous
discussion, however, these measures may obscure as much as they illuminate, since
they rely primarily on official policies and definitions rather than on actual patterns
of implementation.
Other indicators of curricular contents and structure exist (see Pelgrum, Voogt &
Plomp, 1995). Despite apparent terminological inconsistencies, and the limited scope
of many of the studies in which these measures are employed, they deserve further
scrutiny. At a minimum, they underscore important analytical distinctions to be considered when assessing the outcomes of curricular contents: allocation and utilization
of instructional time; classification of content (e.g., specific themes, topics or items
taught or the complexity of materials employed); the instructional context in which
the contents are taught (e.g., teaching methods and pedagogical practices, usage of textbooks and/or supplemental aids); basic curriculum styles (Piper, 1995); and the informal
structure of the curriculum (Kahane, 1997; Yair, 1997; Cohen, 2001).
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
65
CURRICULA AND TEXTBOOKS
In many national education systems, especially in more developed countries, textbooks are a major component of the school curriculum, both official and implemented
(Crossley & Murby, 1994). Educational ministries mandate school textbooks for core
curricular subjects that, in turn, to a large extent determine course lesson-plans, teacherpupil classroom interaction and homework assignments. Assessments of pupil learning
often focus exclusively on textbook-based knowledge.
In the developing world, by contrast, the availability of textbooks – to say nothing
of other basic instruction-related materials – is more limited (Lockheed & Verspoor,
1991). Under such conditions, external forces have especially powerful effects on school
curricula. For example, when countries have meagre resources for textbook development, it is often the products distributed by international textbook publishers that
actually define school curricula (Altbach & Kelly, 1988). In addition, high-status examinations produced by educational metropoles have considerable power over curricular
contents, especially in small states and former colonies (Bray & Steward, 1998; Eckstein
& Noah, 1993).
Comparative research, mainly based on input-output models of student learning
(‘inputs’ being teacher characteristics, textbook availability, class size, school facilities,
etc., and ‘outputs’ being pupil achievements on standardized tests), has shown that
students do better on tests when textbooks are present in the classroom (Heyneman
& Jamison, 1980; Fuller, 1987). These findings led several international agencies,
particularly the World Bank, to increase financial support for textbook production
and distribution in parts of the Third World. At the same time, issues concerning
when and how teachers and pupils actually use textbooks in classrooms, and whether
this varies by subject area, have not been extensively studied. The limited findings
from studies of textbook use on classroom learning are contradictory (Moulton, 1997).
Textbooks, however, do not just convey facts that pupils are expected to learn;
they also organize, legitimate and disseminate selected bodies of cultural knowledge.
Especially in the humanities and the social sciences (but also in other subjects), they
communicate a vision of a nation’s past heritage and contemporary culture; consequently,
they often become an object of intense political and social conflict (Altbach & Kelly,
1988; Apple, 1986).9 In this broad sense, the contents of textbooks may represent a
powerful platform for promoting reconciliation between political enemies (Firer, 1998);
for undermining deeply rooted ideological or cultural beliefs which become socially
unacceptable or repugnant (e.g., militarism, fascism, sexism); for enhancing the visibility and ‘voice’ of marginalized social groups (al-Ashmawi, 1996); and for constructing
a new transnational identity (Soysal, 2000). In large part, international studies of school
textbooks have blossomed in recent decades (examples include the G. Eckert Institute
for International Textbook Research and UNESCO’s textbook research network) because
of the rich social, cultural and political meanings that scholars see embedded in textbooks.
Still, from the perspective of comparative research, key issues remain to be studied
concerning the effects of textbooks, both on individual pupils, and on various social
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
66
Aaron Benavot
institutions and processes. Specifically, under what conditions do textbooks enhance
pupil learning? In addition to learning outcomes, do textbooks, especially in the humanities and the social sciences, influence the attitudes, prejudices or stereotypes that pupils
form and maintain over time – beyond the classroom? At the societal level, do textbooks in the humanistic fields contribute, in some systematic way, to the elimination
of cultural prejudices and misunderstandings, to the strengthening of democratic
institutions and processes, or to the empowerment of minority communities?
The pertinent evidence, based on rather thin comparative research, lends little
credence to claims that textbooks have significant non-cognitive effects. I say this
aware of the convincing arguments advanced by scholars and educators involved in
textbook production and revision. And in saying it I am not attacking the value of
content analyses of textbooks (and course syllabi) to depict societal changes in gender
inequalities, nationalistic orientations, social exclusion/inclusion tendencies, and
dominant pedagogical theories. My point is that while textbooks, to the extent that
they are available, may dominate the contours of classroom life, they do not necessarily embody an authoritative socialization tool that shapes pupils’ attitudes and
worldviews. Clearly, more research is necessary to examine whether systematic changes
occur, in pupils or among groups in society, as a result of the widespread usage of specific
textbooks.
Cu r r i c u l a a n d l e a r n i n g t o l i v e t o g e t h e r
As we have seen, attempts to assess the individual- or societal-level impacts of curricular contents are fraught with problems. A different, though no less important, issue
involves the attempt to clarify and conceptualize the meaning of ‘Learning to live
together’, a recent theme and policy goal of international educational organizations
(Delors et al., 1996). (The September 2001 issue of Prospects, vol. 31, no. 3, was
dedicated to this theme.) Which phenomena and analytical concepts are encapsulated
in this complex notion? Many ideas have been suggested – for example, an ability to
cope with rapid social, economic, political and technological change; a propensity to
acknowledge, understand and respect cultural diversity and community distinctiveness; a willingness to participate actively in public life and political processes; an
appreciation and assimilation of values related to pluralism, social cohesion, peaceful
coexistence and harmony; a capacity to promote and defend basic human rights and
liberties, especially in the face of wars, violence, political conflict and social inequality
– to name but a few (Daniel, 2001). For the most part, these concepts refer to individual-level changes that are assumed to evolve and crystallize during childhood and
adolescence and then to be sustained throughout adulthood. In substantive terms, these
ideas reflect modern notions of selfhood, personhood and citizenship in an increasingly diverse and interdependent world. They are also viewed as necessary building
blocks for a vibrant democracy and broad-based civic engagement.
Given the age spans in which such transformations are presumed to take place
(i.e., during the years of mass schooling), it is not surprising that schools and curricula are viewed as critically formative forces. Still, the net contribution of schooling
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
67
and specially designed contents is ambiguous unless we assess to what degree young
people gain such capacities even in the absence of schooling. Moreover, what specific
‘value’ is ‘added’ to learning to live together from simply attending school, regardless
of the contents to which pupils are exposed? To address these basic issues, the most
fruitful research design would probably be to compare schooled and unschooled
children. Furthermore we have to ask what roles families and communities play in
the formation of such valued capacities: is ‘learning to live together’ not a complex
bundle of dispositions and abilities which, unlike competencies in science and mathematics, are transmitted to the young by a variety of socialization agents? If so, there
is a need to construct studies that disentangle the tissue of familial, communal and
developmental influences that are effective side by side with particular educational
programmes and curricula. Recently completed IEA studies of the civic knowledge
and political engagement of adolescents may provide one set of answers to such questions (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Another might emerge from examining the relative
influence of different background factors – for example, gender, religion, class, family
structure as well as schooling-related factors – on social and political features of adult
life (Inkeles & Smith, 1974; Pallas, 2000).
A different approach is to alter the level of analysis and examine these issues using
aggregate social units like communities, regions or nations. For example, just as
researchers have studied whether national test scores in mathematics and science contribute to economic growth rates (Hanushek & Kimko, 2000), one could examine
whether countries with higher achievements in civic education, or those that allocate
more instructional time to related subjects, are more likely to have more tolerant and
civic-engaged populations, stronger democratic institutions, less human/civil-rights
abuses or lower levels of political violence. I know of no such cross-national study
in which the political or civic effects of curricular contents are analyzed.10 While
there is extensive comparative literature examining the relationship between education and political democratization (Kamens, 1988; Hadenius, 1992; Benavot, 1996),
it mainly compares the political impact of mass (primary, secondary) versus elite (higher)
education, and not specific curricular contents. Comparative research on macro-societal
outcomes, research that looks beyond educational attainment or educational expansion to curricular effects, deserves further attention (Benavot, 1992).
C o n c l u d i n g re m a r k s
Military conflicts, ethnic violence, human-rights abuses, ignorance, cultural marginalization, civic disengagement, ideological indoctrination, religious intolerance,
economic impoverishment and environmental degradation have been, and continue
to be, pervasive features of the global landscape in which we live. Concerted efforts
by individuals, communities and organizations seeking to eradicate or lessen such
manifestations of human misery deserve our active support and respect. Increasingly,
but especially since the Second World War, education has been held up as a nearly
universal remedy to address these, and other, societal maladies. Young children and
adolescents, safely segregated in schools from the iniquities and woes of the adult
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
Aaron Benavot
68
world and given ample opportunities to develop their minds and human potentialities, epitomize a better future in which communities and societies learn to resolve
their conflicts and problems through peaceful means, mutual respect and tolerance.
This belief in the promise and power of schooling, as a tool for sustained social and
economic progress, as well as individual enhancement and self transformation, has
also become an ubiquitous (and highly institutionalized) feature of the world in which
we live.
In this paper, I argue that while the collective and individual benefits of modern
education have been widely extolled in universities, national governments and international organizations, the evidence put forth so far by comparative researchers in
support of such claims is equivocal, tenuous, contradictory or non-existent. As to the
effects of specific school subjects and curricular contents, problems of evidence are even
more pronounced. Not only is there room for healthy scepticism but, as perhaps
befits a comparative education researcher, I argue there is much room for further
study. I say this not to belittle the importance of the themes addressed by recent
international conferences (e.g., UNESCO’s International Conference on Education);
on the contrary, because the overarching goals tackled by these meetings are both
significant and timely, interested scholars and professionals must give them more
than lip service. They must consider whether they do not contribute to justifying
recommendations that either have few real consequences or unwittingly achieve counterproductive results (e.g., strengthen particularism, xenophobia and ethnocentrism or
exacerbate political and social divisions and tensions). While a convincing case can
be made that education is an extremely potent rationalizing and universalizing force
in the modern world, this does not necessarily mean that it contributes to the
amelioration of social conflict, unequal power relations and human misery (Davies,
2001).
The underlying goal of the present paper has been twofold: first, to outline the
complexity of the conceptual and methodological issues under examination; and second,
to raise thought-provoking questions in light of comparative educational research, questions that might help the on-going dialogue and debate among policy-makers and
researchers. While cross-national studies of official curricular intentions have clearly
demonstrated increasing cultural globalization and standardization, comparative research
has much less to report about the uniformity or diversity of actual curricular practices in local schools as well as the complex social and political outcomes brought
about by such patterns. The limits of scholarly knowledge in these areas should be
kept in mind as alternative futures and educational strategies are considered.
No t e s
01.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a special seminar entitled ‘Curricular
Issues on Living Together’ sponsored by UNESCO:IBE, the University of Geneva’s Faculty
of Education and the Unit for Educational Research, Department of Education, Canton
of Geneva, on September 3–4, 2001. Excerpts from this paper were also read during Major
Debate Panel 1, at UNESCO’s 46th session of the International Conference of Education
entitled ‘Schooling for All and Learning to Live Together,’ Geneva, Switzerland, September
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10.
69
5–8, 2001. I want to thank Francisco Ramirez, Tamar Rapoport, Ronald Sultana and John
Meyer for their insightful comments.
Exceptional examples of longitudinal studies include the Malmö Longitudinal Study in
Sweden, begun in 1938; the first United States National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
which began in 1979; and the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and
Youth (NLSCY), initiated in 1994.
A third theme, not explicitly discussed in this paper but increasingly salient in policy
discourse, revolves around the organization and relative efficiency with which educational services are provided by the public sector. This line of thought, rooted deeply in
economic assumptions, frequently involves comparisons between the ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’
of national education systems with an overarching aim of maximizing their relationship.
As of 1999, 91.4% of 186 independent countries analyzed by UNESCO had passed
compulsory school laws. However, even in countries without these laws, education basic
education is often free and enrolment rates are quite high (UNESCO, 1965, 1976,
1985, 1995, and 1999; UNESCO:IBE 1999).
The first IEAP study is reported in Lapointe, Mead & Phillips (1989). Findings from a
second study, carried out in 1991, are reported in a special issue of Comparative education review edited by John Modell (1994).
In addition to these three, the concept of an ideal curriculum, based on the subjective
understandings of educational stakeholders, is sometimes examined (Harrison, 1994)).
In addition, a group of scholars from the University of Michigan have conducted in-depth
investigations of reading and science achievement at the elementary level in the United
States, Japan and Taiwan (Stevenson, Lee & Stigler, 1986).
For other issues related to comparative studies of achievement, see Baker and LeTendre
(2000).
Such an approach can also be employed normatively either to identify the causes of
discrepancies between official curricular directives and the ‘curriculum-in-use’ at the
classroom level or to identify ways to ensure that curricular guidelines and practices are
carried out fully by local principals and teachers.
The recent fallout between South Korea and Japan over Japanese history textbooks –
both in their statements and in their omissions – is a good example of the intra- and international political conflicts often generated by textbook contents.
Studies of the economic effects of curricular contents, employing cross-national research
designs, include Benavot (1992) and Ramirez et al. (2001).
Re f e re n c e s
Altbach, P.; Kelly, G., eds. 1988. Textbooks in the third world: policy content and context. New
York, Garland.
Amadio, M. 1998. Instructional time and teaching subjects during the first four years of primary
education. Educational innovation and information (Geneva), no. 96, pp. 1–7.
Apple, M. 1979. Ideology and curriculum. London, Routledge.
Apple, M. 1986. Teachers and texts. New York, Routledge.
al-Ashmawi, F. 1996. Comparative study of the history textbooks of seven Mediterranean countries. Paris, UNESCO.
Baker, D.; LeTendre, G. 2000. Comparative sociology of classroom processes, school organization and achievement. In: Hallinan, M., ed. Handbook of sociology of education, pp.
345–364. New York, Kluwer/Plenum.
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
70
Aaron Benavot
Benavot, A. 1992. Curricular content, educational expansion and economic growth. Comparative
education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 36, pp. 150–174.
Benavot, A. 1996. Education and political democratization: a cross-national and longitudinal
study. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 377–403.
Benavot, A. et al. 1991. Knowledge for the masses: world models and national curricula,
1920–1986. American sociological review (Madison, WI), vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 85–100.
Benavot, A.; Kamens, D. 1989. The curricular content of primary education in developing countries. Washington, D.C., The World Bank. (Policy, planning and research working papers:
education and employment. Working papers series, no. 237.)
Benavot, A.; Resh, N. 2001. The social construction of the local school curriculum: patterns
of diversity and uniformity in Israeli junior high schools. Comparative education review
(Chicago, IL), vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 504–536.
Bledsoe, C. et al. 1999. Critical perspectives on schooling and fertility in the developing world.
Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
Boli, J. 1997. Globalization. In: Cookson, P. Jr.; Sadovnik, A.; Levinson, D.L., eds. Encyclopedia
on education and sociology. Cambridge, MA, Garland.
Bowles, S.; Gintis, H. 1976. Schooling in capitalist America. New York, Basic Books.
Bray, M.; Steward, L., eds. 1998. Examinations systems in small states: comparative perspectives
on policies, models and operations. London, Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cha, Yun-Kyung. 1991. The effect of the global system on language instruction, 1850–1986.
Sociology of education (Albany, NY), vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 19–32.
Chabbott, C. 1996. Constructing educational development: international development organizations
and the World Conference on Education for All. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School
of Education, Stanford University.
Chabbott, C.; Ramirez, F. 2000. Development and education. In: Hallinan, M., ed. Handbook
of sociology of education, pp. 163–188. New York, Kluwer/Plenum.
Cohen, E.H. 2001. A structural analysis of the R. Kahane code of informality: elements toward
a theory of informal education. Sociological inquiry, vol. 71, no. 3.
Crossley, M.; Murby, M. 1994. Textbook provision and the quality of the school curriculum
in developing countries. Comparative education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 99–114.
Cummings, W. 1999. The institutions of education: compare, compare, compare! Comparative
education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 413–437.
Cummings, W.; Riddell, A. 1994. Alternative policies for the finance, control and delivery of
basic education. International journal of educational research, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 751–776.
Daniel, J. 2001. Learning to live together: a priority challenge at the dawn of the twenty-first
century. Prospects, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 263–268.
Davies, L. 2001. Education and conflict: learning from comparative education. Paper presented
at the World Congress of Comparative Education Societies. Seoul, South Korea, July.
Delors, J. et al. 1996. Learning: the treasure within. Paris, UNESCO.
Dottrens, R. 1962. The primary school curriculum. Paris, UNESCO.
Dreeben, R. 1968. On what is learned in school. Reading, MA, Addison Wesley.
Durkheim, E. 1977 [1938]. The evolution of educational thought. London, Routledge.
Eckstein, M.; Noah, H. 1993. Secondary school examinations: international perspectives on policies
and practice. New Haven, CT, Yale UP.
European Commission. 2000. Key data on education in Europe. Brussels, EC.
Fiala, R.; Lansford, A. 1987. Educational ideology and the world educational revolution,
1950–1970. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 315–332.
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
71
Firer, R. 1998. Human rights in history and civics textbooks: the case of Israel. Curriculum
inquiry, vol. 28, pp. 195–208.
Frank, D.J. et al. 2000. Embedding national societies: worldwide changes in university history
curricula, 1985–1994. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 44, no. 1, pp.
29–53.
Fuller, B. 1987. What school factors raise achievement in the Third World? Review of education research (Washington, DC), vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 255–272.
Fuller, B. 1991. Growing up modern: the Western state builds Third World schools. New York,
Routledge.
Fuller, B.; Rubinson, R., eds. 1992. The political construction of education: the state, school
expansion, and economic change. New York, Praeger.
Garet, M.; Delany, B. 1988. Students, courses and stratification. Sociology of education (Albany,
NY), vol. 61, pp. 61–77.
Glenn, C.L. 1988. The myth of the common school. Amherst, U Massachusetts P.
Goodson, I. 1993. School subjects and curriculum change: studies in curriculum history, 3rd ed.
London, Falmer.
Goodson, I. 1995. The making of curriculum: collected essays. London, Falmer.
Hadenius, A. 1992. Democracy and development. Cambridge, Cambridge UP.
Hanushek, E.A.; Kimko, D. 2000. Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations.
American economic review, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1184–1208.
Harmon, M. et al. 1997. Performance assessment in IEA’s third international mathematics and
science study. Chestnut Hill, MA, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and
Educational Policy.
Harrison, J. 1994. Unity and diversity of culture and curriculum in the Israeli education system.
Jerusalem, Institute for the Study of Educational Systems.
Heyneman, S.; Jamison, D. 1980. Student learning in Uganda: textbook availability and other
factors. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 206–220.
Holmes, B.; McLean, M. 1989. The curriculum: a comparative perspective. London, Routledge.
Inkeles, A.; Smith, D. 1974. Becoming modern. Cambridge, MA, Harvard UP.
Kahane, R. 1997. Informal knowledge and curricula. In: Reuven K.; Rapoport, T., eds. The
origins of postmodern youth, pp. 117–146. Berlin, de Gruyter.
Kamens, D. 1988. Education and democracy: a comparative institutional analysis. Sociology of
education (Albany, NY), vol. 61, pp. 114–127.
Kamens, D.; Benavot, A. 1991. Elite knowledge for the masses: the origins and spread of
mathematics and science education in national curricula. American journal of education,
vol. 99, pp. 137–180.
Kamens, D.; Meyer, J.W.; Benavot, A. 1996. Worldwide patterns in academic secondary education curricula, 1920–1990. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 40, no.
2, pp. 116–138.
Kerckhoff, A. 2000. Transition from school to work in comparative perspective. In: Hallinan,
M., ed. Handbook of sociology of education, pp. 453–474. New York, Kluwer/Plenum.
Kleibard, H. 1986. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. Boston, MA, Routledge.
Lapointe, A.; Mead, N.; Phillips, G. 1989. A world of differences: an international assessment of
mathematics and science. Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.
Lockheed, M.; Verspoor, A. 1991. Improving primary education in developing countries. New York,
Oxford UP.
Lynch, K. 1989. The hidden curriculum: reproduction in education, an appraisal. London, Falmer.
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
72
Aaron Benavot
Maynes, M.J. 1985. Schooling in Western Europe. Albany, NY, SUNY P.
McEneaney, E. 1998. The transformation of primary science and mathematics: a cross-national
analysis, 1900–1995. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology, Stanford
University.
McEneaney, E.; Meyer, J.W. 2000. The content of the curriculum. In: Hallinan, M., ed.
Handbook of the sociology of education, pp. 189–211. New York, Kluwer/Plenum.
McNeely, C. 1995. Prescribing national education policies: the role of international organizations. Comparative education review (Chicago, IL), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 483–507.
Meyer, J.W. 1977. The effects of education as an institution. American journal of sociology
(Chicago, IL), vol. 83, pp. 53–77.
Meyer, J.W.; Jepperson, R. 2000. The ‘actors’ of modern society: the cultural construction of
social agency. Sociological theory, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 100–120.
Meyer, J.W. et al. 1997. World society and the nation-state. American journal of sociology
(Chicago, IL), vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 144–181.
Meyer, J.W. et al. 1992. School knowledge for the masses: world models and national primary
curriculum categories in the twentieth century. London, Falmer.
Meyer, J.W. et al. 1977. The world educational revolution, 1950–1970. Sociology of education
(Albany, NY), vol. 50, pp. 242–258.
Meyer, J.W.; Ramirez, F.; Soysal, Y. 1992. World expansion of mass education, 1870–1980.
Sociology of education (Albany, NY), vol. 65, pp. 128–149.
Modell, J. 1994. Schooling and learning in children’s lives. Comparative education review
(Chicago, IL), vol. 38, no. 1.
Moulton, J. 1997. How do teachers use textbooks: a review of the research literature. Washington,
DC, Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau for Africa, USAID. (Technical Paper,
no. 74.)
Oakes, J.; Gamoran, A.; Page, R. 1992. Curriculum differentiation: opportunities, outcomes and
meanings. In: Philip W.J., ed. Handbook of research on curriculum, pp. 570–608. New
York, MacMillan.
O’Connor, S. 1988. Women’s labor force participation and preschool enrollment: a cross-national
perspective, 1965–1980. Sociology of education (Albany, NY), vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 15–28.
OECD/CERI. 1992. The OECD international education indicators. Paris, OECD.
OECD/CERI. 1994. Making education count: developing and using international indicators.
Paris, OECD.
OECD/CERI. 1995a. Measuring what students learn. Paris, OECD.
OECD/CERI. 1995b. Measuring the quality of schools. Paris, OECD.
OECD/CERI. 2000. Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris, OECD.
Pallas, A. 2000. The effects of schooling on individual lives. In: Maureen Hallinan, M., ed.
Handbook of sociology of education, pp. 499–525. New York, Kluwer/Plenum.
Pelgrum, W.; Voogt, J.; Plomp, T. 1995. Curriculum indicators in international comparative
research. In: OECD. Measuring the quality of schools, pp. 83–102. Paris, OECD.
Piper, K. 1995. Curriculum style as a process variable. In: OECD. Measuring what students learn,
pp. 195–209. Paris, OECD.
Popkewitz, T.S. 1987. The formation of school subjects and the political context of schooling.
In: Popkewitz, T.S., ed. The formation of the school subjects, pp. 1–24. New York, Falmer.
Ramirez, F.; Ventresca, M. 1992. Building the institution of mass schooling: isomorphism in
the modern world. In: Bruce Fuller, B.; Rubinson, R., eds. The political construction of
education: the state, school expansion, and economic change, pp. 47–60. New York, Praeger.
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002
A critical analysis of comparative education research
73
Ramirez, F.; Luo, X.; Schofer, E.; Meyer, J.W. 2001. Does academic achievement in mathematics and science promote economic growth? Paper under review. School of Education,
Stanford University.
Rauner, M. 1998. The worldwide globalization of civics education topics from 1955–1995.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, Stanford University.
Schafer, M. 1999. International nongovernmental organizations and Third World education
in 1990: a cross-national study. Sociology of education (Albany, NY), vol. 72, no. 2, pp.
69–88.
Soysal, Y. 2000. Identity and transnationalization in German school textbooks. In: Hein, L.;
Selden, M., eds. Censoring history: citizenship and memory in Japan, Germany, and the
United States. Armonk, NY, W.E. Sharpe.
Stevenson, H; Lee, S.; Stigler, J. 1986. Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese and
American children. Science, vol. 14, pp. 693–699.
Torney-Purta, J. et al. 2001. Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam, International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Travers, K.; Westbury, I. 1989. The IEA study of Mathematics I: analysis of mathematics
curricula. Oxford, Pergamon.
UNESCO. 1979. International Conference on Education: recommendations 1934–1977. Paris,
UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1965, 1976, 1985, 1995, 1999. Statistical yearbook. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2000. World education report. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO:IBE. 1960. Preparation of general secondary school curricula, no. 216. Geneva, IBE.
UNESCO:IBE. 1999. World data on education, 3rd ed. Geneva, IBE.
UNESCO:IBE. 2000. World data on education: a guide to the structure of national education
systems. Paris, UNESCO.
Waller, W. 1961 [1932]. The sociology of teaching. New York, Russell and Russell.
Wong, Suk-Ying. 1991. The evolution of social science instruction, 1900–1986. Sociology of education (Albany, NY), vol. 64, pp. 33–47.
Yair, G. 1997. When classrooms matter: implications of between-classroom variability for
educational policy in Israel. Assessment in education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 225–248.
Prospects, vol. XXXII, no. 1, March 2002