THE OECD DIFFUSION

MECHANISMS AND ITS LINK WITH

TEACHER POLICY WORLDWIDE$

Pablo Fraser and William C. Smith

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents a theoretical and historical account of the OECD

policy diffusion mechanisms, specifically addressing their influence on
teacher policy. In order to present our argument, the chapter is divided in
three sections. First, we present a historical description of how the
Directorate of Education and Skills of the OECD has become a central
figure in global policy discussions. Then, we address the particular
mechanisms through which the OECD is able to expand their influence.
We argue that the scientific validation of their recommendations through
country reviews and the invitation to participate in large-scale studies
and surveys, such as the Programme for International Students
Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS),
have become pivotal for communicating policy messages concerning
teacher quality and development. Next, we argue that while OECD

$
The analyses and comments presented in this chapter does not necessarily repre-
sent the view of the organization to which the authors belong.

The Impact of the OECD on Education Worldwide

International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 31, 157
180
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-367920160000031009
157
158 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

recommendations are engrained in notions of human capital, their work

on teachers has incorporated elements of professional capital.
Additionally, we stress how the influence of social science and large-scale
survey studies has contributed to the development of a concept of teacher
professionalization promoted by the OECD.
Keywords: OECD; PISA; TALIS; policy diffusion; teacher policy;
global policy

INTRODUCTION
Now, more than ever, international organizations (IOs) are becoming a
fundamental actor in the shaping of policy and educational policy in partic-
ular. The space for defining the aims and purposes of education is moving
away from local or national platforms to complex and dynamic interna-
tional arenas (Verger, Novelli, & Altinyelken, 2012). The fostering and
improvement of teacher quality has been a core topic in such arenas and
thus, has become a theme susceptible for the study and evaluation of IOs.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) is a relatively new player in the complex scenario of IOs.
However, it has quickly risen to prominence as one of the most influential
actors in shaping educational debates across the world (Meyer & Benavot,
2013). Furthermore, the mechanisms that the OECD have used to enact
their influence is dramatically different than other organizations such as the
World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). While these organizations have tended to use
semi-coercive mechanisms such as loan or legally binding agreements, the
OECD has opted for more subtle paths, such as the invitation to partici-
pate in empirically based, cross-national studies.
The findings of the OECD studies create a normative pressure for partic-
ipating countries and economies to look to what is being done in other sys-
tems, try to understand the reason of the success or failure of their own
systems, and identify and adapt characteristics of those more successful.
This is rooted in a global process where the route for development is
heavily dependent on mutual observations and expectations. Thus, from a
governance perspective, the OECD has developed a system of policy diffu-
sion based on soft-power mechanisms consisting of two key dimensions: (a)
expectations and observations as the driving force for change and (b) policy
messages legitimized by the use of cross-national empirically based data.
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 159

Thus, expectations and scientific arguments go hand in hand with the

OECD policy message.
The aim of this chapter is to present a theoretical and historical account
of the OECD governance mechanisms, specifically addressing their influ-
ence on teacher policy. To construct our argument, we conduct a content
analysis, reviewing three different sources of materials:
• Official OECD documentation: In official documentation, we include
OECD reports highlighting research and findings surrounding teacher
policy themes. These reports consist of country reviews, thematic reports
on a particular subject, or the presentation of the results of an interna-
tional study such as the Programme for International Students
Assessment (PISA) or the Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS). The
common aspect across studies was the presentation of empirical evidence
and policy recommendations. The review of these reports was conducted
under the assumption that they crystallized the OECD’s policy frame-
work. The online OECD library service was used to locate sources.
• OECD international studies websites: The websites of studies such as
PISA and TALIS were reviewed in order to understand the purposes,
processes, and participation in these studies.
• Historical accounts of the OECD mission and developments: Two key
sources were used to provide us with the historical framework for this
study: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development by
Woodward (2009) and Mechanisms of OECD Governance: International
Incentives for National Policy Making by Martens and Jakobi (2010).
Both works provide the platform from which we analyze and evaluate
OECD mechanisms.
To present our argument, the chapter is divided into three sections. We
start with a brief argument regarding the role of IOs in policy development.
Then, we present a description of how the Directorate of Education and
Skills at the OECD has become a central actor in the world of policy dis-
cussions. We will show that instituting a worldwide platform for policy dis-
cussions was an aspect planned since the inception of the organization and
has been made stronger through the years by the increasing inclusion of
developing countries in OECD reviews and studies.
The following section describes governance mechanisms through which
the OECD is able to expand their influence. We argue that the elaboration
of country reviews and the invitation to participate in large-scale surveys,
such as PISA and TALIS, have become pivotal points for communicating
teacher policy messages. The OECD is an arena where different education
160 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

policy ideas clash but ultimately one clear policy message is distilled par-
tially aided by the legitimization of empirically based evidence and by a
clear conception of development based on human capital theories. The
mechanisms of the OECD are then related to the organization’s messaging
around teacher policy, which is followed by a short conclusion.

THE INFLUENCE OF IOS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

LOCAL POLICIES
The influence and potential impact that the OECD can have on national
education policies needs to be understood under a general framework on
the role of IOs in the globalization process.
IOs represent an institutional innovation that has helped shaped world
society as we know it (Robertson, 2013, 2012; Stichweh, 2000). While tradi-
tionally, the creation and implementation of education policy were under
the auspices of national and sub-national units, such as teachers, principals,
and school boards, increasingly nation-states have become susceptible to
the influence of IOs (Nagel, Martens, & Windzio, 2010). Today IOs “shape
national debates about education policy, influence states’ aims and goals in
the field, and even change the structures of domestic systems” (Leuze,
Martens, & Rusconi, 2007, pp. 9
10).
This does not necessarily imply that the nation-state is an irrelevant or
passive agent in education policy. The nation-state remains the main agent
making decisions on policies in their territories. Nevertheless, IOs define
what is thinkable or doable in the education field (Woodward, 2009). In
other words, IOs define the rules of the field from which nation-states act
upon (Thomas, 2004), limiting the repertoire of options adopted by nation-
states (LeTendre et al., 2001). The penetration of IOs into policy dialogue
is made possible through the collection of empirical data and correspond-
ing policy recommendations.

OECD: A CRUCIAL ACTOR IN POLICY IDEA

FORMATION
Similar to many other IOs, the origins of the OECD can be traced to the
aftermath of World War II. Originally called the Organization for
European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), the initiative was developed to
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 161

help reconstruction efforts in Europe. In September 30, 1961, the OEEC

changed its name to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) to emphasize “its concern for economic develop-
ment worldwide” (Woodward, 2009, p. 18).
The OECD actively adopted human capital theories as a framework to
guide their policy messages (Henry, Lingard, Taylor, & Rizvi, 2001;
Valiente, 2014). Human capital theory expands traditional conceptions of
production which consider the investment in physical capital
land, infra-
structure, machinery
as the main source of wealth and growth for coun-
tries. Alternative, human capital theory considers less tangible elements,
such as individual ability, capacity, skills, and knowledge, as the main
source of production, wealth, and stability (Becker, 2002).
From a human capital perspective, education provides a mix of both pri-
vate and public returns and is viewed primarily as an investment instead of
an impetus for more intrinsic benefits (Joshi & Smith, 2012). Indeed, evi-
dence shows that increases in economic growth are correlated with the level
of educational attainment at the country level (Cooray, 2009). Increasing
the general level of education of the workforce can contribute to increased
worker productivity and therefore increase the gross national product
(Barro, 2002; Rouse, 2007). Thus, from the human capital perspective, the
OECD promoted investments in education, highlighting the link between
skills and economic return.
The objectives of the OECD mission, framed in human capital terms,
are stated in Article 1 of the OECD Convention:

a. To achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising
standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and
thus contribute to the development of the world economy;
b. To contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member
countries in the process of economic development; and
c. To contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multi-lateral, non-discrimina-
tory basis in accordance with international obligations. (Woodward, 2009, p. 3)

From these points it is important to notice that the main concern of the
OECD is the economic advancement of nations. To accomplish this task,
an emphasis is placed on the improvement of individual skills and abilities
(Martens & Jakobi, 2010; Nagel et al., 2010; Robertson, 2012; Sellar &
Lingard, 2013; Spring, 2009; Tröhler, 2013; Woodward, 2009).
Additionally, the establishment of free trade markets under democratic
governments has been recognized by the OECD as the sine qua non
requirement for the development of countries.
162 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

Table 1. OECD Members and Years of Signing the Convention.

Australia (1971) Hungary (1996) Norway (1960)
Austria (1960) Iceland (1960) Poland (1996)
Belgium (1960) Ireland (1960) Portugal (1960)
Canada (1960) Israel (2010) Slovak Republic (2000)
Chile (2010) Italy (1960) Slovenia (2010)
Czech Republic (1995) Japan (1964) Spain (1960)
Denmark (1960) Korea (1996) Sweden (1960)
Estonia (2010) Latvia (2016) Switzerland (1960)
Finland (1969) Luxembourg (1960) Turkey (1960)
France (1960) Mexico (1994) United Kingdom (1960)
Germany (1960) Netherlands (1960) United States (1960)
Greece (1960) New Zealand (1973)

Source: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries

Point (b) indicates the desire of the OECD to have an impact beyond
member nations. Presently the 35 member nations of the OECD (Table 1)
represent 60% of the world economy (Martens & Jakobi, 2010) and it has,
therefore, appropriately been labeled as a “rich-men group” (Woodward,
2009). However, and especially noticeable since the 1990s, the OECD has
tried to be a relevant consultant for non-member countries through policy
recommendations and data collection (Kamens, 2013; Lockheed, 2013;
Martens & Jakobi, 2010; Meyer & Benavot, 2013). The scope of OECD
analyses and recommendations has moved beyond member countries,
expanding to over 100 countries across all continents in the world
(Martens & Jakobi, 2010). To focus efforts in enacting influence beyond
the scope of member countries, the Center for Co-operation with Non-
Members was created (Martens & Jakobi, 2010).
The increasing number of countries under the OECD realm of influence
contributes to a larger and more diverse peer-reviewed international com-
munity (Woodward, 2009). The construction of this community is clear by
looking at Article 3 from the OECD Convention:

a. Keep each other informed and furnish the organization with the information neces-
sary for the accomplishment of its tasks;
b. Consult together on a continuing basis, carry out studies and participate in agreed
projects;
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 163

c. Co-operate closely and where appropriated take co-ordinated actions. (Woodward,

2009, p. 4)

Article 3 highlights the importance of mutual observation as a precondi-

tion to the global diffusion of institutional patterns. Furthermore, the peer-
review process and the mutual observation encouraged by the OECD have
risen to the normative standard, as described by the OECD’s first secre-
tary-general Thorkil Kristensen: “The OECD should develop a common
value system at the level of civil servants in the OECD countries that
should form the basis for consensually shared definitions of problems and
solutions in economic policy making” (Kristensen cited in Woodward,
2009, p. 19). A common value system would result from peer-reviewed
cross-national consultations based on the use and analysis of objective and
scientific data (Rinne & Ozga, 2013). In turn, the common value system
will produce like-minded countries committed to democratic and market
models of governance.

OECD GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS: DIFFUSION

THROUGH COUNTRY REVIEWS AND LARGE-SCALE
STUDIES
In the previous section, we argued how the OECD developed as a platform
for mutual observation across nation-states at the same time it promoted
a policy message strongly shaped by a human capital perspective. The
present section seeks to identify the particular mechanisms through which
OECD messages and policies are globally diffused.
The organizational structure of the OECD can provide insights into how
policy recommendations are shaped and diffused. In the main headquarters
in Paris, France, representatives from all member countries and economies
meet to define guidelines, debate and exchange information. The decisions
concerning the direction of the OECD are made by a Council which is
made up from one member from each member country and by a represen-
tative of the European Union (EU). The Council decisions are informed by
the work carried out by the ongoing committees and workshops. Decisions
are reached though consensus and enforced by peer pressure. The OECD
Secretariat is responsible in carrying and executing the decision reached by
the Council, which is diffused through its directorates and divisions
(Martens & Jakobi, 2010).
164 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

Space in this chapter limits a complete breakdown of the intricate pro-

cess of decision making inside the OECD, but what is important to notice
is the myriad of stakeholders that have an input on the OECD message.
Nation-states are represented through individuals on the Council, while
scholars and policy makers from different nationalities voice their view in
committees and workshops. The OECD staff and analysts have the duty to
convey these sets of interests and perspectives in concrete research objec-
tives and policy goals. Additionally, representatives from different institu-
tions, such as UNESCO, the World Bank, and Educational International
(EI), are invited as observers to provide input on specific projects.
The OECD was able to achieve this conglomeration of nation-states
through its particular model of influence. Unlike other IOs, the OECD
does not have strong coercive or normative mechanism to make nation-
states participate in their projects. Coercion can be seen in the operations
of the World Bank as it has been known for carrying their influence
through conditional aid based on investment loans (Mundy, 2007;
Robertson, 2012). UNESCO has used normative elements by requesting
the adherence of guiding principles for development as well as more coer-
cive approaches based on legally binding agreements (Mundy, 2007). A dis-
tinct aspect of the OECD, which sets it apart from other IOs, is that “it
cannot apply legal sanctions nor does it distribute financial resources to
push incentives for compliance” (Martens & Jakobi, 2010, p. 6). Thus,
research has identified that the OECD has developed a so-called soft-power
approach to the implementation of their policy.
OECD governance operates mainly through an invitation directed to
nation-states to take part in their initiatives. Thomas (2007) has described
this as a process of moral-voluntarism which pushes countries to seek,
accept, and participate in OECD initiatives. As the OECD is increasingly
legitimated as an international expert, more countries are motivated to take
part in OECD processes (Wiseman, 2013).
The OECD successfully diffuses its policy recommendations through
three distinctive policy mechanisms. Based on the work of Martens and
Jakobi (2010), Fig. 1 identifies the distinctive OECD governance mechan-
isms to the education field, namely through national policy reviews and
standardized surveys.
In section A of Figure 1, idea production refers to the capability of the
OECD to shape and convey a clear and sound policy message. In the inter-
national meetings between nation-state representatives and their experts,
the organization “presents visions and values, develops scenarios, and
defines guiding principles and concepts. It identifies present tendencies and
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 165

A. OECD’s governance mechanisms

Ideas

Policy Data
reviews gathering

B. OECD’s governance
Reviews of national Standardized evaluations
mechanisms in
policies for and surveys
the educational field
education (PISA, PIAAC, TALIS)

Fig. 1. OECD’s Governance Mechanisms in the Education Field. Source: Based

on the ideas presented by Martens and Jakobi (2010).

future problems that are later discussed at a national level” (Martens &
Jakobi, 2010, p. 9). We consider the mechanisms of idea production to be
the basis from which all other mechanisms of the OECD are developed
since they identify the foundation for both their policy recommendations
and data gathering process.
With diverse perspectives coming from a range of stakeholders, the ques-
tion remains how can one idea succeed over others, and how does it get val-
idated and crystalized as part of the message delivered by the organization.
This is done through at least two overarching mechanisms. Policy reports
stem from ideas and refer to concrete efforts of the OECD to evaluate
national policies, diagnose problems, and offer solutions (Jakobi,
Teltemann, & Windzio, 2010; Tröhler, 2013; Woodward, 2009). The pro-
cess of country-based policy evaluations can be the result of a direct peti-
tion of a nation-state or the OECD’s own initiative to examine the policies
of a country of interest. Policy evaluations consist of a “multilateral surveil-
lance instrument” (Martens & Jakobi, 2010, p. 10), which is the best mani-
festation of the mutual observation, expectations, and cross-national
cooperation promoted by the OECD. Policy reviews influence nation-states
by defining policy standards and identifying best practices. Through these
166 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

processes, “the OECD can morally commit its member states to a common
set of goals, draw attention to positive examples, and ultimately promote
convergence between member states” (Martens & Jakobi, 2010, p. 11). As
policy evaluations expand beyond member states, the convergence will also
take place in non-OECD countries (Meyer & Benavot, 2013; Nagel et al.,
2010).
Also observed in section A of Figure 1, data gathering and production
has become one of the mechanisms the OECD is best known for and has
been a fundamental characteristic in its operations since the beginning of
the organization (Jakobi & Martens, 2010; Kamens, 2013; Meyer &
Benavot, 2013; Rinne & Ozga, 2013; Sellar & Lingard, 2013). The quantity
of data gathered in the education field has led the OECD to overtake
UNESCO as the dominant publisher of educational statistics (Sorensen,
2016b; Sorensen & Robertson, 2016). The elaboration and diffusion of
quantitative data allow the production of rankings and make possible
cross-country comparison on a series of indicators. Ratings and rankings
are measured according to country output which the OECD defines as an
observable result in a particular policy sector. Education inputs are
highlighted after international comparison reveals them as some of the best
practices for reaching the desired outcome (Martens & Jakobi, 2010).
Under this parameter, the OECD identifies high-performing countries, dif-
fuses information on their best practices, provides recommendations to
poor-performing countries, and in that process establishes international
standards and benchmarks.
The power of OECD data and policy reviews can, in part, be contrib-
uted to the scientized world polity which includes a world culture that
increasingly puts faith in science as the path to truth (Drori, Meyer,
Ramirez, & Schofer, 2002; Smith, 2016, 2014). In this space, policy design
and patterns are increasingly legitimized as long as they meet a series of
criteria seemingly scientific, based on observable empirical observation,
neutral value judgement, and testable and reliable results, among others.
Using a term coined by Anthony Giddens (1990), in our modern world sci-
ence has become an expert system able to establish a series of quality stan-
dards that make the presentation of an idea or an argument easier to
accept as truth. Some have criticized that the simple perception of data as
infallible prevents the necessary conversations on complex issues from hap-
pening: “as long as the public maintains this irrefutable objectivity of statis-
tics, a graph here and a chart there can leverage support for provincial
reforms that could never survive nuanced deliberation” (Robertson, 1999,
p. 715). Others have pointed out that causal language used in OECD
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 167

reports is inappropriate given their data constraints and methods

(Goldstein, 2004). Nonetheless, and not surprisingly, the OECD’s continual
use of this scientific or quasi-scientific language legitimizes their recommen-
dations (Rinne & Ozga, 2013).
Specific to the work of education in the OECD, Section B of Figure 1 indi-
cates that the primary data gathering mechanism enacted are standardized
evaluations like PISA and surveys like TALIS. Participation in the PISA test
has been one of the most studied mechanisms of the OECD (Kamens, 2013;
Meyer & Benavot, 2013; Rinne & Ozga, 2013; Sellar & Lingard, 2013;
Wiseman, 2010, 2013). This international standardized test evaluates the
skills of 15-year-old students in language, mathematics, and science. PISA
sample design seeks to collect a representative sample of 15-year-olds.
Following the human capital perspective, the decision to evaluate 15-year-
olds was done to identify the population which has mastered minimal skills
and is ready to be incorporated into the workforce (Jakobi & Martens, 2010).
The first wave of the PISA test was conducted in 2000 and has been
implemented every three years since that date, producing up to 2017 a total
of six PISA evaluations. Each cycle emphasizes one of three subject content
areas (i.e. language, mathematics, or science). The PISA study also gathers
information about the student, the school, and in some countries, the par-
ents through the application of questionnaires. The results of the PISA test
represent a country output that allows for the establishment of interna-
tional rankings while the information gathered by the questionnaires tries
to identify the inputs that explain high achievement and thus identify best
practices (Martens & Jakobi, 2010). The scientific presentation of PISA
results are seen by many as objective data that reveal the true nature of the
quality of the educational system in a given country (Rinne & Ozga, 2013).
Undoubtedly, the ranking of the results create an unprecedented pressure
on the educational systems of countries around the world.
How does this pressure and competition lead to convergence toward the
OECD agenda? Results from PISA create uncertainty regarding necessary
steps to improve or maintain a participant’s relative standing. Uncertainty
combined with ranking results inevitably leads to comparison. The differ-
ences in outputs lead to questions about associated inputs; that is, in order
to explore the differences in country performance, an examination of the
characteristics of the top-performing countries is in order. Furthermore, in
order to improve the performance of the education system, it is necessary
to learn what the top-performing countries are doing and try to emulate it.
Importantly, a key component in these comparisons is the OECD’s signifi-
cant role as mediator.
168 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

As we can see from Fig. 2, participation in PISA evaluations has

increased across the years for both OECD and non-OECD members.
It can be observed in Figure 2 that in two years, 2009 and 2012, the
number of non-OECD countries participating in PISA surpassed the num-
ber of OECD countries. For 2018, the number of countries and economies
participating in PISA is expected to, just like 2015, be above 70 units, posi-
tioning PISA as the largest cross-national evaluation in the world
(Lockheed, 2013).
The scope of the PISA study has expanded in recent years through the
development of two sibling projects: “PISA for Schools” and “PISA for
Development.” PISA for Schools consists of the application of PISA eva-
luations and questionnaires to individual schools that would like to rank
themselves relative to the national or international average (Lewis, Sellar &
Lingard, 2016). PISA for Development adapts the PISA evaluation and
questionnaire to developing countries across the world. The countries that
have confirmed the participation in the project include Cambodia,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal, and Zambia
(OECD, n.d.). Overall, this project reflects the desire of the OECD to be
an influential agency well beyond the scope of member countries along

50
45
40
Number of Countires

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD Countries 28 30 31 31 34 34
Non-OECD Countries 15 11 26 44 31 38

Fig. 2. Countries in PISA Evaluations by Test Waves. Source: Data obtained from
OECD website (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisaparticipants.htm).
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 169

with its nature of being a space for the articulation of different ideas and
perspectives.
Since 2013, TALIS offers the option of applying the survey to a repre-
sentative sample of primary and upper secondary teachers. Another option,
called the “TALIS-PISA link” options, applied the TALIS teacher ques-
tionnaires in schools that have also participated in the PISA study, thus
allowing the possibility of linking data from TALIS with PISA. Using the
TALIS-PISA link database and through the use of statistical methods such
as multilevel regression analyses, the OECD have been able to identify
“best practices,” defined as those actions that are more likely to be associ-
ated with an increase in student outcomes1 (Echazarra, Salinas, Méndez,
Denis, & Rech, 2016; Le Donné et al., 2016; OECD, 2016a).
To date, PISA has had a substantial impact on national policy, with par-
ticipation influencing policy discussion in several countries, such as the
United States, Finland, Japan, and Norway (Haugen, 2013; Rinne, Kallo,
Hakko, 2004; Wiseman, 2013; Weymann, 2010). Germany’s PISA shock
was one of the first well-documented phenomena which pointed to the
unexpected media-fueled alarm concerning a drop in the PISA achievement
in Germany. This panic occurred despite the country’s regular status as a
top achiever (Weymann, 2010; Wiseman, 2013). Although the timing and
ferocity of the response lagged behind Germany (Martens & Niemann,
2013), policy makers in the United States have become concerned about
their PISA scores, especially relative to high-performing East Asian coun-
tries. Additionally, the notoriety of PISA scores has led to an increase in
education-related exports as the top performers, such as Finland, capitalize
on the desire of other countries to incorporate their best practices
(Auren & Joshi, 2016). In general, the results of PISA evaluations has led
to increased national discussion on decentralization, choice, privatization,
market mechanisms, centralization of curriculum, and accountability pro-
cedures (Meyer & Benavot, 2013).
Teachers have become an increasingly central part of the PISA discourse
since the inclusion of an optional teacher questionnaire in 2015. The ques-
tionnaire covers topics ranging from teacher background, training and pro-
fessional development opportunities, school and classroom climate, and
frequency and type of teacher practices applied in the classroom. Since
PISA subject emphasis changes in every three-year cycle, the specific peda-
gogical practices covered by the survey also shift. The PISA teacher ques-
tionnaire potentially allows the analyst team at the Directorate of
Education and Skills of the OECD to explore the association of teacher
practices and student outcomes.
170 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

The growing interest for teachers led the OECD to TALIS which collects
information from a nationally representative sample of lower secondary
teachers. The TALIS project is supported in collaboration with the world’s
federation of teachers unions, EI, which reflects how the work of OECD
has caught the interest of not only policy makers but also teachers
(Robertson, 2012). The data collected range from teachers’ characteristics,
how teachers’ work is appraised, working conditions, instances of profes-
sional development, as well as beliefs and attitudes toward teaching
(Robertson, 2012).
As Fig. 3 shows, 24 countries (20 OECD countries and 4 non-member
countries) participated in the first wave of TALIS in 2008, while the most
recent wave in 2013 had 38 participants (24 OECD countries and 14 non-
member countries) (OECD, 2009)2. For the wave in 2018, TALIS is
expected to be implemented in more than 40 countries, with the majority of
participants non-OECD members. Although it has yet to make the same
policy impact as PISA, Sorensen (2016a) highlights how Finland has used
TALIS scores to target more coordinated induction and mentoring
programs.

Fig. 3. Countries participating in TALIS by survey wave. Source: Data obtained

from OECD website (http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/talis.htm).
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 171

We have seen in this section that both the PISA and TALIS study are key
mechanisms for the OECD’s diffusion of ideas. Their legitimacy comes from
the scientific validation of being able to produce representative samples and
present solid statistical associations between key indicators. We also were
able to observe that a series of international actors convene in these research
spaces created by the OECD. However, it is important to note that countries
and economies have the ultimate decision-making authority regarding the
priorities of each study. The OECD is the space of mutual observation where
nation-states compare and discuss their policy interests, which the interna-
tional consortium latter materializes in a research project.

TEACHER ROLE FROM AN OECD PERSPECTIVE:

HUMAN CAPITAL, LIFELONG LEARNING, AND
PROFESSIONALIZATION
The OECD’s rhetoric and materials on teachers appear to be augmented
from their initial human capital approach to education. This is driven by
the TALIS project which moves OECD policy messages from a strictly
human capital frame to one that more focused on empowerment and repre-
sentation. The voice of teachers, promoted through the TALIS project, is
difficult to reconcile with their human capital approaches and the coverage
of more psychologically focused themes, such as teacher self-efficacy, con-
tradict sharply with the skills and evaluation orientation of other OECD
projects (Sorensen, 2016b). Although, a human capital perspective is still
observable in the survey emphasis for student-orientated practices and pro-
fessional development (Robertson, 2012; Rinne & Ozga, 2013), several
nation-states and teacher union representatives have found that the empha-
sis that the survey has on their working conditions is a tremendously
appealing aspect of the study. The dynamic ebb and flow of human capital
and teacher professionalization orientations is clear in the three seminal
OECD reports focused on teachers.
The first, Teacher Matters: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective
Teachers (OECD, 2006), consists of an elaboration of background reviews,
external OECD visits, data collection, and workshops in 25 countries. One of
the major conclusions of the report was the need to define professional stan-
dards which incentivizes a greater degree of agency for teachers, limits their
tasks to the classroom, and informs their classroom decision by evidence-
based research. The report highlighted teacher certification and professional
172 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

development as a mechanism to ensure highly trained professionals are able

to make evidence-based decisions in their classroom.
This was followed by an OECD report stressing the importance of tea-
cher’s responsibility and decisions, Building a High-Quality Teaching
Profession: Lessons from around the World (OECD, 2011) written by then
head coordinator of the PISA evaluation, Andreas Schleicher. The report is
unequivocal about the relevance of teachers in order to ensure education
quality: “countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive
profession have often done so not just through pay, but by raising the sta-
tus of teaching, offering real career prospects, and giving teachers responsi-
bility as professionals and leaders of reform” (OECD, 2011, p. 11).
Furthermore, the report links teachers’ responsibility with a sense of
teacher professionalization as observed in the following quote:

The essence of professional work can be seen as the acknowledgement that it is the profes-
sional, and not the supervisor, who has the knowledge needed to make the important deci-
sions as to what services are needed and how they are to be supplied. Organizations
dominated by professionals are those in which there are fewer layers of management,
workers are consulted on all matters of consequence, and workers have considerable
discretion with respect to diagnosing client needs and deciding which services are appro-
priate to address those needs. Indeed, in many professions, and for many professionals,
the worker is also the manager and, in many cases, the owner as well. (OECD, 2011,
p. 17)

The importance of viewing and treating teachers as professionals is a

consistent theme in the language and reports of the OECD. High level of
teacher professionalism is associated with successful education systems
which “have abandoned the factory model, with teachers at the bottom
receiving orders from on high, to move toward a professionalized model of
teachers as knowledge workers. In this regard, teachers are on a par with
other professionals in terms of diagnosing problems and applying evidence-
based practices” (Schleicher and Stewart cited in Robertson, 2012).
The most recent OECD report, Supporting Teacher Professionalism:
Insights from TALIS 2013 (OECD, 2016b) continues the OECD’s emphasis
on teacher professionalism by outlining the three main domains that con-
ceptualize teaching as a profession: a knowledge base, autonomy, and peer
networks. With a strong knowledge base, teachers are able to adapt
instruction appropriately to meet individual student needs, identifying and
effectively applying best teaching practices where needed. Autonomy, at
times understood as decision making, is present when teachers are given
the freedom to choose instructional materials, assessment practices, and
pedagogical approaches.
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 173

Finally, peer networks suggest that teaching as a profession is not an

isolated activity but is instead one in which standards are created and regu-
lated in collaboration with others and best practices are shared. Although
the OECD recognizes that each country may incorporate different elements
of teacher professionalism in their system, they emphasize that high levels
of teacher professionalism are associated with greater teacher satisfaction;
the three domains complement each other, and investments in teacher pro-
fessionalism may be especially meaningful in higher needs schools. While
not directly stated, the three domains of this report align closely with the
concept of professional capital coined by Fullan and Hargreaves (2012).
According to these authors, professional capital refers to the necessary
areas of investment for the development of the teaching workforce.
There are three core components of professional capital: the develop-
ment of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and skills (human capital); the
need for collaborating, sharing, and discussing with their peers (social capi-
tal); and the ability to make informed and relevant decisions concerning
their work (decision capital). The report then illustrates the OECD’s transi-
tion, at least for teachers, from a perspective that solely values individual
skills to one where skills are part of a broader package, complemented by
collaboration and peer networking.
The results of the PISA and TALIS evaluations served as an input for
the creation of the International Summit on the Teaching Profession
(ISTP) (Robertson, 2012) which provides the OECD with another opportu-
nity to influence policy. The summit is the result of the joint effort between
the OECD, the U.S. Department of Education, and EI. Since the inaugural
2011 summit in New York, ISTP has been conducted annually in different
cities around the world. The issues and topics covered in these meetings
revolve around teacher quality, teacher professionalization, and school
management (Asia Society, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011). Along with presenting
country cases, the summit frames its discussion around evidence collected
from the PISA and TALIS study (Robertson, 2012).
Currently, the ISTP is the biggest international gathering where issues
surrounding teachers are discussed. Delegations from more than 30 coun-
tries take part in this OECD-sponsored activity. Although the partici-
pants are predominantly from OECD member countries, delegations
from non-member countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Vietnam have also participated. Thus, it is of particular relevance that
teachers’ authority over curricular decisions has been highlighted as one
of the main issues to be addressed. For example, the 2012 ISTP declared
that infusing the teaching profession with high-level skills such as
174 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

“creativity/innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making,

and learning to learn” (Asia Society, 2012, p. 6) was necessary. During
the 2013 ISTP, the case of Finland was highlighted specially for the
degree of responsibility given to their teachers in deciding curriculum
(Asia Society, 2013). The 2014 ISTP concluded that in order to attract
and retain experienced and effective teachers, teachers should have
“increasing responsibility for the instructional quality of the school”
(Asia Society, 2014, p. 8).
In preparation for the 2016 ISTP, Andreas Schleicher completed the
report Teaching Excellence through Professional Learning and Policy
Reform. The report, which drew largely from the OECD thematic report
on teacher professionalism, helped frame the summit’s discussion around
the three OECD-identified domains of teacher professionalism. Its execu-
tive summary provides an interesting glimpse into how the OECD is incor-
porating their work on teacher professionalism into their long-standing
perspective on human capital. The approach is clear in the first sentence of
the report which states, “Today’s teachers need to prepare students for jobs
that have not been created, to use technologies that have not yet been
invented, and to solve problems that haven’t arisen before” (p. 9).
The human capital aims of education
to create the skills necessary to be
successful in society
have now more narrowly been identified as one of the
primary aims of teaching. The best practices outlined in Schleicher’s report
mirror much of its dialogue around teacher participation and autonomy.
Some of the specific policy recommendations include greater teacher involve-
ment in school-level decisions, education reform, and developing professional
standards; increased teacher capacity to identify and incorporate the most
impactful practices, including those using technology; and the building of a
more collaborative culture by strengthening induction and mentoring pro-
grams and linking professional autonomy with collaborative practices.
In summary, the OECD uses their relative influence in the global educa-
tion arena to shape the language around teacher professionalism and play
a major role in promoting quality teacher reforms. In addition to the pro-
fessionalism domains outlined above, the OECD had advocated for teacher
certification, adequate teacher salaries, and paths to career advancement
(Akiba, 2013; OECD, 2006). From the view of the OECD, these reforms
will help attract and retain innovative and qualified candidates to the pro-
fession. At the same time, aspects like teacher certification help build a pro-
fessional profile that may lead to greater autonomy and decision making in
the classroom. Teacher certification has been highlighted as part of the life-
long learning process of teachers (OECD, 2006, 2009).
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 175

CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have presented an articulated but complex overview of
the educational policy diffusion mechanisms that have been set by the
OECD and how they specifically relate to the OECD’s teacher policy mes-
sages. From its historical origins the OECD was a space for nation-states
to compare their development policies. Ideas were shared and diffused
under the umbrella of a human capital perspective. Furthermore, this per-
spective was validated by the scientific, or the seemingly scientific, nature of
the data gathering process of the OECD that was expressed in country
reviews and international studies and surveys. The careful sampling strate-
gies and the elaborated statistical modeling presented in both the TALIS
and PISA study provide a sense of objectivity that helped promote their
policy message. Additionally, the OECD has been able to create an intri-
cate and complex space where countries and economic interests meet the
expert knowledge of the international organizations to invest in conducting
quality research.
The OECD’s policy message on teachers has nudged their perspective
beyond the traditional human capital approach toward professional capi-
tal. This is clear in the use of autonomy, management, and networking as
the key components in defining teacher professionalism. Still, there are
signs that the influence of human capital may be encroaching on the
OECD’s work on teachers. Specifically, the identification of best practices
and continuing discussion to better align TALIS with PISA suggests
the OECD may be moving toward linking teacher best practices with stu-
dent performance, and ultimately economic outcomes. The “synergies”
between the two programs can be seen in the link between TALIS and
PISA schools in eight countries (Sorensen & Robertsen, 2016; for more on
the PISATALIS link see Le Donné et al., 2016) and the ongoing discussion
to align the projects data collection cycles (OECD 2015).
Regarding its mission and the inclusion of member and non-member
nation-states into projects, the OECD faces challenges adapting project fra-
meworks to increasingly diverse participants. Instances such as PISA for
Development provide a concrete initiative where a stable OECD study
seeks to adapt to the requirements and needs of developing countries.
Although some are optimistic, there remain significant barriers in expand-
ing PISA for Development and bridging it with the main PISA evaluation
(Clarke, 2015; Schleicher & Costin, 2015). The success of this program will
determine if other initiatives focused on the development of teachers will
follow.
176 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

NOTES

1. An important limitation of the PISA design is it does not identify school class-
room. Individual students cannot be linked with their classroom teacher, but rather
with their school teachers. Thus, student outcomes can only be associated with the
aggregated practices or characteristics of their teacher at their schools. This is a
clear difference with other large-scale studies such as the Trends in Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS), which is able to identify classroom, and correlate stu-
dent outcomes with their classroom teachers’ practices and characteristics.
2. Four countries and economies (i.e., Georgia; New Zealand; the Russian
Federation; and Shanghai, China) participated in 2014 instead of 2013.

REFERENCES

Akiba, M. (2013). Introduction: Teachers Reforms from Comparative Policy Perspective.

In M. Akiba (Ed.), Teacher reforms around the world: Implementations and outcomes
(pp. xix
xlii). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Asia Society. (2011). Teaching and leadership for the twenty-first century: The 2011 international
summit on the teaching profession. Retrieve from http://istp2015.org/
Asia Society. (2012). Teaching and leadership for the twenty-first century: The 2012 international
summit on the teaching profession. Retrieve from http://istp2015.org/
Asia Society. (2013). Teaching and leadership for the twenty-first century: The 2013 international
summit on the teaching profession. Retrieve from http://istp2015.org/
Asia Society. (2014). Teaching and leadership for the twenty-first century: The 2014 international
summit on the teaching profession. Retrieve from http://istp2015.org/
Auren, H., & Joshi, D. (2016). Teaching the world that less is more: Global education testing
and the Finnish national brand. In W. C. Smith (Ed.), The global testing culture:
Shaping Education policy, perceptions, and practice (pp. 63
84). Oxford: Symposium
Books.
Barro, R. (2002). Education as a determinant of economic growth. In: E. Lazaer (Ed.),
Education in the twenty-first century (pp. 9
24). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution
Press.
Becker, G. (2002). The age of human capital. In E. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the twenty-first
century (pp. 3
8). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Clarke, M. (2015). The PISA for development initiative moves forward: Have my wishes been
fulfilled? Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/pisa-development-initia-
tive-moves-forward-have-my-wishes-been-fulfilled
Cooray, A. (2009). The role of education in economic growth. Paper presented at the 38th
Australian Conference of Economists, Adelaide, Australia.
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. M., Ramirez, F. O., & Schofer, E. (2002). Science in the modern world
polity: Institucionalization and globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Echazarra, A., Salinas, D., Méndez, I., Denis, V., & Rech, G. (2016). How teachers teach
and students learn: Successful strategies for school. OECD Education Working Papers,
No. 130. OECD Publishing, Paris.
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 177

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. Teachers College Press
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goldstein, H. (2004). International comparisons of student attainment: Some issues arising
from the PISA study. Assessments in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 11(3),
319
330.
Haugen, C. (2013). Comparing the OECD’s and Norway’s orientation to equity in their teacher
education policies: Teacher autonomy under attack. Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, 11, 166
202. Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/11-2-06.pdf
Henry, M., Lingard, B., Taylor, S., & Rizvi, F. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education
policy. Oxford: Pergamon.
Jakobi, A., & Martens, J. (2010). Expanding and intensifying governance: The OECD in edu-
cation policy. In K. Martens & A. Jakobi (Eds.), Mechanisms of OECD governance:
International incentives for national policy making (pp. 163
179). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jakobi, A., Teltemann, J., & Windzio, M. (2010). The internationalization of education policy
in a cross-national perspective. In K. Martens, A. Nagel, M. Windzio, & A. Weymann
(Eds.), Transformation of education policy (pp. 227
258). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Joshi, D., & Smith, W. (2012). Education and inequality: Implications of the World Bank’s
Education Strategy 2020. In C. Collins & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the
developing world: Revising the World Bank’s education policy (Vol. 16, pp. 173
202).
International Perspectives on Education and Society. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Kamens, D. (2013). Globalization and the Emergence of an audit culture: PISA and the search
for “best practices” and magic bullets. In H. D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA,
power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 117
140).
Oxford: Symposium Books.
Le Donné, N., Fraser, P., & Bousquet, G. (2016). Teaching strategies for instructional quality:
Insights from the TALIS-PISA Link Data. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 148,
OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en
LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D., Akiba, M., Goesling, B., & Wiseman, A. (2001). Teachers’ work:
Institutional isomorphism and cultural variation in the U.S., Germany, and Japan.
Educational Researcher, 30(6), 3
15.
Leuze, K., Martens, K., & Rusconi, A. (2007). New arenas of education governance
The
impact of international organizations and markets on education policy making. In
K. Martens, A. Rusconi, & K. Leuze (Eds.), New arenas of education governance: The
impact of international organizations and markets on education policy making (pp. 3
16).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewis, S., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). PISA for schools: Topological rationality and new
spaces of the OECD’s global educational governance. Comparative Education Review,
60(1), 27
57.
Lockheed, M. (2013). Causes and consequences of international assessments in developing
countries. In H. D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emer-
gence of global educational governance (pp. 163
184). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Martens, K., & Jakobi, A. (2010). Introduction: The OECD as an actor in international poli-
tics. In K. Martens & A. Jakobi (Eds.), Mechanisms of OECD governance: International
incentives for national policy making (pp. 1
25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
178 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

Martens, K., & Niemann, D. (2013). When do numbers count? The differential impact of the
PISA rating and ranking on education policy in Germany and the US. German Politics,
22(3), 314
332.
Meyer, H. D., & Benavot, A. (2013). PISA and the globalization of education governance:
Some puzzles and problems. In H. D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), Pisa, power and
policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 7
26). Oxford: Symposium
Books.
Mundy, K. (2007). Educational multilateralism
Origins and indications for global gover-
nance. In K. Martens, A. Rusconi, & K. Leuze (Eds.), New Arenas of education gover-
nance: The impact of international organizations and markets on educational policy
making (pp. 19
39). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nagel, A., Martens, K., & Windzio, M. (2010). Introduction
Education policy in transfor-
mation. In K. Martens, A. Nagel, M. Windzio, & A. Weymann (Eds.), Transformation
of education policy (pp. 3
27). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
OECD. (n.d.). PISA for development
Participating countries. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-for-development-participating-countries.htm. Accessed on
July 24, 2016.
OECD. (2006). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/attractingdevelopingandretainin-
geffectiveteachers-finalreportteachersmatter.htm
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
Retrieved from http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp¼1417
OECD. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession lessons from around the
world. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstu-
dentassessmentpisa/buildingahigh-qualityteachingprofessionlessonsfromaroundthe-
world.htm
OECD. (2015). Beyond PISA 2015: A longer-term strategy for PISA. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Longer-term-strategy-of-PISA.pdf
OECD. (2016a). Low-performing students: Why They fall behind and how to help them succeed.
PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016b). Supporting teacher professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Rinne, R., & Ozga, J. (2013). The OECD and the global re-regulation of teachers’ work:
Knowledge-based regulation tools and teachers in Finland and England. In T. Seddon &
J. S. Levin (Eds.), World year book of education 2013: Educators, professionalism and pol-
itics: Global transitions, national spaces and professional projects (pp. 97
116). London:
Routledge.
Rinne, R., Kallo, J., & Hokka, S. (2004). Too eager to comply? OECD education policies and
the Finnish response. European Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 454
485.
Robertson, H. (1999). In Canada-bogus points. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 715
716.
Robertson, S. (2012). Placing teachers in the global governance agendas. Comparative
Education Review, 56(4), 584
607.
Robertson, S. (2013). Teachers’ work, denationalisation and transformations in the field of
symbolic control: A comparative account. In T. Seddon & J. S. Levin (Eds.), World
year book of education 2013: Educators, professionalism and politics: global transitions,
national spaces and professional projects (pp. 77
96). London: Routledge.
The OECD Diffusion Mechanisms and Its Link with Teacher Policy 179

Rouse, C. (2007). Consequences for the labor market. In C. Belfield & H. Levin (Eds.), The
price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education (pp. 99
124).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Schleicher, A., & Costin, C. (2015). The challenges of widening participation in PISA.
Retrieved from http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.fr/2015/11/the-challenges-of-widen-
ing.html
Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). PISA and the expanding role of the OECD in global educa-
tional governance. In H. D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The
emergence of global educational governance (pp. 185
206). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Smith, W. C. (2014). The global transformation toward testing for accountability. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 22(116).
Smith, W. C. (2016). An introduction to the global testing culture. In W. C. Smith (Ed.), The
global testing culture: Shaping education policy, perceptions, and practice (pp. 7
24).
Oxford: Symposium Books.
Sorensen, T. B. (2016a). The uses of international comparative data for political objectives:
The OECD TALIS programme and initial teacher education reform in England and
Finland. Presented at UNIKE Conference, Copenhagen, June 15
17, 2016.
Sorensen, T. B. (2016b). Teachers and the global education policy field. In T. D. Jules (Ed.),
The new global educational policy environment: Gated, regulated, and governed (Vol. 26,
pp. 59
84). Public Policy and Governance. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Sorensen, T. B., & Robertson, S. L. (2016). The OECD program TALIS and framing, measur-
ing and selling Quality TeacherTM.. In M. Akiba & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), Routledge
international handbook of teacher quality and policy. Oxford: Routledge.
Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stichweh, R. (2000). On the genesis of world society: Innovations and mechanisms.
Distinction: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 1(1), 27
38.
Thomas, G. (2004). Sociological Institutionalism and the empirical study of world society. In
M. Albert & L. Hilkermeier (Eds.), Observing international relations; Niklas Luhmann
and world politics (pp. 72
85). London: Routledge.
Thomas, G. (2007). Globalization: The major players. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell com-
panion to globalization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tröhler, D. (2013). The OECD and cold war culture: Thinking historically about PISA. In
H. D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global
educational governance (pp. 141
162). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Valiente, O. (2014). The OECD skills strategy and the education agenda for development.
International Journal of Educational Development, 39, 40
48.
Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. (2012). Global education policy and international
development: An introductory framework. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. Altinyelken
(Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agenda, issues and
policies (pp. 3
31). Bloomsbury Academic.
Weymann, A. (2010). The educating state
Historical developments and current trends. In
K. Martens, A. Nagel, M. Windzio, & A. Weymann (Eds.), Transformation of education
policy (pp. 53
76). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wiseman, A. W. (Ed.). (2010). The impact of international achievement studies on national
education policymaking (Vol. 13). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
180 PABLO FRASER AND WILLIAM C. SMITH

Wiseman, A. W. (2013). Policy responses to PISA in comparative perspective. In H. D. Meyer &

A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational gover-
nance (pp. 303
322). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Woodward, R. (2009). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). New York, NY: Routledge.