EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

Tout d'abord, il faut signaler que le ComitE de redaction a pris la decision lors de sa reunion de 1993 de changer le titre frangais de la Revue. D~s ce premier numEro de 1994 elle s'intitule la Revue internationale de l'dducation, et non plus de pddagogie. Ce changement refl~te ?~notre avis les intentions de la revue ainsi que le contenu des articles prEsentEs depuis des dEcennies dans ce forum. D'un cotE, 'T Education" devient de plus en plus l'objet de recherches multidisciplinaires. De 1' autre, elle ne comprend pas seulement l'enseignement scolaire des jeunes, ce qui pourrait ~tre une interpretation limitEe de "pddagogie', ni m~me les syst~mes d'Education nationaux et rEgionaux, mais tout ce processus d' apprentissage vEcu par nous tous au cours de la vie. Depuis plus de vingt ans, I'IUE met l'accent dans ses recherches sur l'Education permanente. La r e v u e - la R I E - continuera g accueillir les articles et les rapports concernant tousles aspects de l'Education, sur l'Education non formelle et formelle.

The tensions between global models and local interpretations are clearly seen in this issue of the journal. These are closely interwoven with the nature of the education which a society wishes to provide for its members, taking into account its behavioural norms, requirements for occupational expertise, and available means. In order to judge quality and effectiveness, the parameters of these abstractions must be determined. In other words, what is it that education is being asked to do, and what elements is it good to take from other systems? Underlying this question are assumptions about the desirability of some modifications of social behaviour and of modes of education which promote curiosity rather than satisfaction with prepared answers. Vedder addresses the matter of global transfer directly in criticising the measures used by international agencies for comparative purposes. Even if, he suggests, the measures can successfully be standardised, they run the risk of imposing curricular constraints on those who are judged by them. If, either as a consequence or as a preliminary, a core curriculum or core competences are agreed in a given subject, is it certain that the significance of the items in that core does not vary between countries? This may appear to be cavilling but it is admitted, for example, that the definitions of literacy developed by UNESCO are open to wide interpretation and can at best achieve only an approximate comparability between linguistic and cultural entities. International Review o f Education - lnternationale Zeitschrift fiir Erziehungswissenschaft Revue Internationale de l'Education 40(1): 1-4, 1994.

One could interpret the reservations of the author to indicate the need of a qualitative element to provide a contextual gloss on quantitative research. Nonetheless, Vedder concludes that it is important for poorer countries, which can be heavily influenced by models of evaluation developed exogenously, to participate in international comparisons, in order that both parties may learn. Hickling-Hudson asks specifically whether "Third World" education can rise to the challenge of active resistance against the ecological damage caused by capitalist and socialist consumerism. The implicit answer is that it can only do so in alliance with educationists in richer countries, since she emphasises the importance of actions in countries of all types, in a spirit of world citizenship. Faced with global economic, commercial and biological systems, and the significance of the profit motive for the decisions of politicians and merchants across the world, a fine distinction between the ethics of institutions of rich and poor countries cannot be made, and global cooperation between those with common aims makes sense. However, it is true that it is Western perceptions and models of materialistic living which are being promulgated and adopted: the author gives the example, even in environmental education, of the donation and use of inappropriate US teaching materials. For some students, the concept of world citizenship has become familiar, and local rivalries in certain parts of the globe are no longer expressed in violence. But in the light of numerous recent examples of contrary behaviour in the "Old World" of Africa, Asia and Europe, one wonders how any international code of ethics can be made effectively binding, however laudable the aim, such as has been proposed by Gorbachev (1990 - see HicklingHudson's references). It is also proper to ask, as ever, whether teachers of all political and ethical views have the right directly to encourage activism among their students, and if not all, then which? The answer depends on a moral judgment. Crossley also considers the transfer of models. He examines the wider school curriculum of Papua New Guinea, both the initial influence of expatriates and the subsequent internal relationship between national and school-based curricula. Jejune early attempts to allow teachers to develop local curricula failed, since both expatriates and newly engaged national teachers resorted to copying their own past experiences of learning, Substance has lately been given to the endeavour to foster local control by the appointment of provincial advisers, and the investment of time and money in the preparation of national, rather than imported, textbooks. While some Western countries are reining in local autonomy in the interests of national comparability and accountability, the experience of Papua New Guinea may show whether a partially devolved system can be sustained. Citing Little (1988 see his references), Crossley points out that the West is not the only source of successful models, and that much can be learnt from experimentation in developing countries. It might be added that recent Western models can hardly

be judged successful and worth copying if they have to be modified and changed with extraordinary frequency and are subject to dispute among researchers, practitioners, journalists and politicians. One aspect of local interpretation to which Crossley alludes is the distinction to be drawn between teachers who are "technicians", and those who are "reflective". In order to implement global measures of comparison, such as those discussed by Vedder, it appears necessary that they be the former, while if they are to satisfy the intentions of Hickling-Hudson, they have to be the latter. One suspects that under normal circumstances teachers have to be both in order to fulfil the varied obligations of their role, and that a lack of competence at one pole of this scale cannot be compensated by overreliance on the other. The last Article, by AlSafi, refers to yet another transfer, that of the "show and tell" activity known in US classrooms for several decades, to the context of Saudi Arabia. This may not be part of a formal curriculum, but the author suggests that it is a very effective and inadequately known method of enhancing language development. By its very nature it must be culturally specific in content, inasmuch as children are asked to talk about their firsthand experiences, even if these are only their reactions to imported stimuli. Moreover, the acquisition and development of language is a common human experience. However, is it everywhere acceptable for children to speak their minds, or are there societies in which this would be regarded as immodest precocity? The paper presented here sees no objection in its own cultural context, and perhaps it is unnecessary to be oversensitive to the transfer of certain models of classroom behaviour. The first of the two Notes, by Ma~eru Mendez, appears to move away from questions of international transfer and comparison. However, it does refer to the intention to support major changes in the place of women in Spanish society. It is not improper to ask, in the context of criticism of the import of Western models, whether such changes are an undesirable alien import from the North, or a welcome freeing of women from centuries of exclusion from public life and discouragement of literacy. The answer for readers of this and other journals of education will undoubtedly be the latter. Some elements of some cultures are commonly regarded as desirable, while others are thought noxious. Is this differentiated, composite version of a converging world culture the true image of a probable future global philosophy of education, rather than that which would result from resignation to the imposition of Western or Northern models driven by the demands of capitalist-led consumerism? Thomas, in the second Note, addresses the sensitive topic of the relevance of ethnic allegiance to comparative research. It is, he suggests, unnecessary to mention ethnic characteristics unless these are supposed to have some influence on, or to be susceptible to influence by, the matter under investigation. They may in fact frequently be relevant, but it will be necessary to define closely which aspects of ethnic identity are to be considered, and

therefore how people are to be categorised in order to meet the requirements of the research and to satisfy their own perceptions of who they are. The meanings of some of the terms mentioned by Thomas have changed over time, as have notions of the aims and proper methods of education. As yet we can perhaps be thankful that these are not universally agreed or imposed, even though comparability is thereby rendered more complex. PJS