The diverse national and international educational policies strive to engage in innovative and reformist educational programs that provide social actors evidence of the compromise of current agendas to comply with the challenges of postmodern societies. Although the conservative character of the pedagogies in countries of great educational success, such as Finland and South Korea, has caused a “scandal” among international observers due to its scarce innovation (Simola, 2005), it has nevertheless clearly demonstrated the goodness and wisdom involved in a great deal of elements pertaining to the educational tradition. Countries must hold an exquisite balance between tradition and reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhoE., PitkänenK., & SahlbergP. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968.Washington, DC: World Bank.
2.
CarlgrenI. (2009). The Swedish comprehensive school: Lost in transition?Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,12(4).
3.
CarnoyM. (1999). Globalización y reestructuración de la educación.Revista de Educación,318, 145–162.
4.
CoxR. W. (1996). Approaches to world order.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
CrookD. (2011). Standards in English education: An enduring historical issue.Re-vista Española de Educación Comparada,18, 61–88.
6.
CrossleyM., & WatsonK. (2003). Comparative and international research in education: Globalisation, context and difference.London: Routledge.
7.
DaleR. (2000). Globalisation: A new world for comparative education? In SchriewerJ. (Ed.), Discourse formation in comparative education.Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.
8.
DaleR. (2007). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: A focus on the mechanisms. In LingardB., & OzgaJ. (Eds.), The Routledge reader in education policy and politics.London: Routledge.
9.
FilmerP. (1997). Disinterestedness and the modern university. In SmithA., & WebsterF. (Eds.), The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher education in society.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
10.
García RuizM. J. (2010a). Estudio comparativo de la educación: Finlandia y Comunidad de Madrid. Análisis y Recomendaciones.Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid.
11.
García RuizM. J. (2010b, September 15). La formación del profesorado debería ser cuestión de Estado.Magisterio, p. 10.
12.
García RuizM. J., & Gavari StarkieE. (2009). Tradición y reforma en la educación occidental del siglo XXI.Madrid: Ediciones Académicas.
13.
GibbonsM., LimogesC., NowotnyH., SchwartzmanS., ScottP., & TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.London: Sage.
14.
HenryM. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy.Oxford: Pergamon.
15.
KempnerK. (1998). Post-modernizing education in the periphery and in the core.International Review of Education,44, 441–460.
16.
KotthoffH. G., & PereyraM. A. (2009). La experiencia del PISA en Alemania: recepción, reformas recientes y reflexiones sobre un sistema educativo en cambio.Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado,13(2), 1–24.
17.
Mateos MonteroJ. (2001). La formación crítica en el espacio fedicariano: El caso de Fedicaria-Salamanca. In MainerJ. (Ed.), Discursos y prácticas para una.Sevilla, Spain: Diada.
18.
McGinnN. F. (1997). De la globalización en los sistemas educativos nacionales.Perspectivas,27(1), 41–57.
19.
McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top.Chicago: Author.
20.
Melgarejo DraperJ. (2006). La selección y formación del profesorado: clave para comprender el excelente nivel de competencia lectora de los alumnos finlandeses.Revista de Educación (número extraordinario), pp. 237–262.
21.
OECD. (2004). Messages from PISA-2000.Paris: Author.
22.
OECD. (2009). Education at a Glance 2009.Paris: Author.
23.
OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Student performance in reading, mathematics and science.Paris: Author.
24.
PedróF., & RoloJ. M. (1998). Los sistemas educativos iberoamericanos en el contexto de la globalización. Interrogantes y oportunidades.Revista Iberoamericana de Educación,17, 257–289.
25.
PereyraM. A., GonzálezG., LuzónA., & TorresM. (2009). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests and changing schools.Granada, Spain: CESE.
26.
PetersM. (2001). Post-structuralism, Marxism and neoliberalism: Between theory and politicsLanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
RäsänenR. (2006). Quality education: A small nation's investment for future.Oulu, Finland: Oulu University.
28.
RätyH. (1995). Parental attitudes towards the comprehensive school and educational reforms.Finnish Journal of Education,26(3), 250–260.
29.
Räty (1997). Profesorado y reforma de la escuela comprehensive.The Finnish Journal of Education, Kasvatus,26(3), 250–260.
30.
RinneR. (2003). Neo-liberal thinking has arrived in Finnish education policy.Aikuiskasvatus.
31.
RouttiJ., & Ylä-AnttilaP. (2006). Finland as a knowledge economy: Elements of success and lessons learned.Washington, DC: World Bank.
32.
ScottP. (1997). The postmodern university? In SmithA., & WebsterF. (Eds.), The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher education in society.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
33.
SimolaH. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education,Comparative Education,41(4), 455–470.
34.
SmithA., & WebsterF. (Eds.). (1997). The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher education in society.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
35.
ViñaoA. (2002). Sistemas educativos, culturas escolares y reformas.Madrid: Morata.
