Explore the vast range of titles available.

The proliferation of standardized testing and administrative statistics in compulsory education is embedded in the rise to prominence of quantified accountability as a mechanism of education governance. Numbers work by stripping away the contexts of their production and the granular and ambiguous detail of the phenomena they claim to represent. The article re-examines qualitative interviews collected during a completed international project that studied policies and practices of accountability reforms and quality evaluation in Russian school education to understand how actors involved in quantified accountability—from producers to users of large-scale assessments of learning outcomes and administrative statistical data—articulate measuring or being measured in a decontextualized manner. The article offers two theoretical contributions on the enactment of accountability policies. First, it shows the importance of analytical attention to the materiality of accountability policies, that is, their specifically numerical nature. Second, it proposes that the study of accountability enactment should address the question of how actors deal with the decontextualizing propensities of quantified accountability. I conclude that enactment of accountability is fuelled by quantified decontextualization and the diverse ways in which actors experience, make sense of and act upon it.

The article explores the coloniality of knowledge production in comparative education in and about (post)socialist spaces of southeast/central Europe and the former Soviet Union after the Cold War. We engage in a particular form of decoloniality, or what Walter Mignolo terms “delinking,” to fracture the hegemony of Western-centric knowledge and enable comparative education to gain a global viewpoint that is more inclusive of different voices. Our critique is threefold. First, we engage in rethinking and rewriting socialist past(s) through new and multiple frames to reveal possibilities for imagining postsocialist future(s). Second, we show the relations and the intertwined histories of the spatially partitioned world. Third, we examine how coloniality has shaped our own identities as scholars and discuss ways to reclaim our positions as epistemic subjects who have both the legitimacy and capacity to look at and interpret the world from our own origins and lived realities. El artículo explora la colonialidad de la producción del conocimiento en la educación comparativa dentro y fuera de los espacios (post)socialistas del sudeste/centro de Europa y la antigua Unión Soviética después de la Guerra Fría. Participamos en una forma especial de decolonialidad, o lo que Walter Mignolo designa “desvincular” (“delinking”), para fracturar la hegemonía del conocimiento céntrico occidental y permitir la educación comparativa para ganar una perspectiva global que es más inclusiva de las diferentes voces. Nuestra crítica es triple. En primer lugar nos dedicamos a reflexionar y volver a escribir el pasado socialista a través de marcos nuevos y múltiples para revelar las posibilidades de imaginar un futuro postsocialista. En segundo lugar mostramos las relaciones y las historias entrelazadas del mundo particionado desde el punto de vista espacial. En tercer lugar examinamos de qué forma la colonialidad ha moldeado nuestras propias identidades como académicos y hablamos sobre las formas de recuperar nuestras posiciones como sujetos epistémicos que tienen legitimidad y capacidad para observar e interpretar el mundo desde nuestros propios orígenes y realidades vividas. Cet article explore la colonialité de la production des connaissances dans l’éducation comparée dans et à propos des régions (post)communistes en Europe de l’Est et dans l’ancienne Union soviétique après la Guerre Froide. Nous nous engageons dans une forme particulière de décolonialité, ou ce que Walter Mignolo appellerait “dissociation,” pour casser l’hégémonie des connaissances centrée sur l’Occident et permettre une éducation comparée, afin d’obtenir un point de vue global qui tienne mieux compte des différentes voix. Notre critique est triple. D’abord, nous entreprenons de repenser et de réécrire le(s) passé(s) communiste(s) à travers des cadres nouveaux et multiples, afin de révéler des possibilités d’imaginer un/des futur(s) postcommuniste( s). Deuxièmement, nous montrons les relations et les historiques entrelacés d’un monde aux espaces séparés. Troisièmement, nous examinons comment la colonialité a modelé nos propres identités en tant qu’universitaires et nous débattons pour savoir comment retrouver nos positions de sujets épistémiques légitimes et capables d’étudier et d’interpréter le monde à partir de nos propres origines et des réalités que nous vivons. 本文探讨了 冷战后在欧洲东南/中部和前 苏联时期（后）社会主义空间内部和周围在比较教育中的殖民性知识产生。我们进行了特 殊形式的非殖民化，或者如 Walter Mignolo 所称的“脱钩”以打破以西方为中心的知识霸权， 使比较教育能够获得对 不同声音更加包容的全球性观点。我们的批判具有三重性。第一，我们 通过新型多重框架对社会主义过往进行反思和重写，以揭示对 后社会主义未来进行想象的可能性。第二，我们展现了 世界经过空间划分之后的内部关系与错综复杂的历史。第三，我们审视了殖民性是如何将 我们自己的身份塑造成 学者的，并讨论了将我们的地位改造成知识主体的方式， 从而让我们既有正当性又有能力 从我们自己的起源和所处的现实来看待和解读世界。 يستكشف هذا المقال الطبيعة الاستعمارية للإنتاج المعرفي في التعليم المقار ن أ و روبا وسحداشرق جنوب ف ي ا لا شت را ك ي ة المناطق ف ي .البا ردة الحرب ب ع د ال سا ب ق ا ل س و ف ي ت ي والاتحادونحن نشارك في شكل معين من أشكال إنهاء الاستعمار أو م ا ا ل غ ر ب ي ة ال و س طي ة ال م ع رف ة هيمنة ل ك س ر وذلك \"ا لا رتبا ط ف ك\" م ي غ ن ول و و ال ت ر عل ي ه ي طل ق ش م ولي ة ا لأ ك ث ر ال عال م ي ة الن ظ ر وجهة ا ك ت سا ب من المقا ر ن ا ل ت ع ل ي م و ت م ك ي ن . ا ل م خ ت ل ف ة ل لأ صوات وال و ١ي أن نقدنا هو نقد ثلاثي. أولأ، نحن نشارك في إعادة التفكير وفي إعادة كتاب ة ت صو ر إمكانات عن ل ل ك ش ف وال مت ع د د ة ال جدي دة الإطارات.خلال من ا لا شت را ك ي ضي١ل م ا .ا لا شت را كي ة ا ل ف ت ر ة ب ع د ما ا ل م س ت ق ب د ث ا ن ي ا، نحن نعرض العلاقات والتاريخ المتشابك .مكانيا ا ل م ش م للع-المثالذبا وأخيرا، نحن ندرس كيف أن الاستعمار قد شكل هويتنا الخاصة ت ت م ت ع م ع ر ف ي ة ك كا ئ نا ت م و ا ق ف ن ا ا ست عا د ة س ب ل و ننا ق ش ك عل ما ء وأ صولنا ال ع ال م إل ى الن ظ ر من ت م ك ن ن ا ا ل ت ي والق د رة ب ال ش ر ع ي ة . ت ف س ي ر ه إعادة ومن ن ع ي ش ه الذي وال واق В этой статье анализируется колониальность производства знаний в сравнительном образовании в различных (пост)социалистических странах Юго-Восточной и Центральной Европы и бывшего СССР после Холодной войны. Авторы рассматривают определенную форму деколониальности (или того, что Уолтер Миньоло называет «разрывом»), призванную сломить гегемонию западно-центристских знаний и предоставить сравнительному образованию возможность получить глобальное видение, позволяющее уделить больше внимания различным точкам зрения. Представленный критический обзор состоит из трех частей. Во-первых, авторы переосмысливают и переписывают социалистическое прошлое, используя новые, многочисленные структуры и раскрывая возможности для формирования постсоциалистического будущего. Во-вторых, они демонстрируют связи и переплетения в истории пространственно разделенного мира. В-третьих, авторы рассматривают, каким образом колониальность сформировала нас как ученых, и обсуждают, как нам восстановить свои позиции эпистемологических субъектов, обладающих и законным правом, и способностью воспринимать мир с учетом своих корней и жизненного опыта.

This contribution reports on a symposium that aimed to collectively discuss different approaches to deal with processes of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of education. Inspired by Asimov’s Laws of Robotics and Pasquale's recently published N ew L aws of R obotics , the symposium’s purpose was to collectively advance laws that would be specifically tailored to the field of education. In that regard, the term edu-automation seeks to propose ways of conceptualizing and imagining automation as an educational endeavor; that is, not as a purely technical-factual matter that is subsequently translated into educational practice, but equally as a matter of educational concern. Through three narratives and propositions, this contribution discusses similarities and differences between the concepts of automation and AI, and shows some of the different features that tie education and automation together. The variety and substantial differences between the three accounts shows that automation and AI cannot be approached single-sidedly, and that in order to come to a profound understanding of this phenomenon, we need to deploy a variety of theoretical, educational, and normative standpoints and positions.

During the Cold War, linear and future-oriented temporalities were enforced to accelerate social transformation on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Despite efforts to control time by bracketing complex human conditions, children were routinely engaged in everyday activities that followed different rhythms. Building on Barbara Adam’s notion of timescapes and drawing on collective biography research, this article examines different temporal experiences through childhood memories of harvesting in a forest, a family garden, and a collective farm. These memories reveal emotionally intense—embodied and embedded—temporal experiences of children entangled within timescapes of multiple and sometimes contradictory dimensions of human and more-than-human times.

This paper examines the discourses framing citizenship education in Ukraine and Russia from perestroika to the present and assesses the role of the Council of Europe in promoting democratic citizenship in both countries. We argue that there is a tension between the discourses of active citizenship, strongly disseminated by international agencies (the Council of Europe in our case), and national consolidation, pursued by Ukraine and Russia since the fall of the Soviet regime. While the beginning of the 1990s was marked by democratization and individualization, from the mid-1990s the emphasis on state cohesion became more prominent in both states. From the end of the 1990s, however, citizenship education aims started to diverge, despite a similar approach of the Council of Europe to the two countries. In Russia the government reinforced the state cohesion agenda, which led to the patriotic education discourse gaining strength. In Ukraine, nation-building was made secondary to bringing the education system in line with international standards in order to improve the country's competitiveness. The nature of citizenship education in the two countries therefore seems to be more a reflection of domestic political developments than the product of international policy agenda.

Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policies and practices are local, historically and socially context-specific constructions. In addition to local ideals and policies, discursive practices concerning ECEC are influenced by universal ideals that are described and assigned by the member states of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( 1989 ). This article examines the complex, culture-specific domestication of the universal commitment to the ‘best interests of the child’ in policies and curriculum guidance concerning ECEC for children under 3 years of age in two countries, Brazil and Finland. The qualitative case analysis is based on the main national policies and curricular guidelines on ECEC in both countries. Brazil and Finland both emphasize in their ECEC policies and curriculum guidance the rights of the (young) child to participation and protection. Similarities are also found in their emphasis on the educational nature of ECEC Institutions. Brazil is, however, more diverse in the treatment of its heterogeneous population. In Finland, the ‘best for the child’ is considered to be similar for all, i.e. the concept is domesticated uniformly across the entire population regardless of ethnicity or social class. In Brazil, in contrast, ‘the best’ is differentiated further for different strata of the population. In Brazil, ECEC policies aim to increase attendance in out-of-home care, whereas in Finland, the best for the youngest (0–3 years.) children unfolds as home care supported financially by the state.