Secondary education systems all around the world typically maintain a distinction between academic and vocational tracks or programs. Yet, the question of whether to vocationalize the secondary school is still recurrent in many educational systems, especially in developing countries (Holsinger & Cowell, 2000; Lauglo & Maclean, 2006; Psacharopoulos, 1987). On the one hand, different studies show that vocational secondary education provides students with better chances to compete in the labour market (Gallart, 2001; Meer, 2007; Shavit & Muller, 2000). On the other hand, tracking students into general or vocational secondary education has been deemed to be a source of inequality in the distribution of education opportunities. Students in vocational
…show more content…
Moreover, as this paper will explain, this process of change is consistent with the propositions of the literature on organizational learning (Haas, 2000; Haas & Haas, 1995; Siebenhüner, 2008; Siebenhüner & Arnold, 2007). In the 1980s, different prominent IOs such as UNESCO, the World Bank (WB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), shifted from a strong emphasis on vocational secondary education to a preference for basic schooling (Benavot, 1983). This shift emerged as a result of new knowledge generated by cost-benefit assessments of vocational secondary education that revealed this kind of training as less efficient compared to basic schooling (Heyneman, 1987; Middleton, 1988; Psacharopoulos & Loxley, 1985). Later in the 2000s, secondary education was brought back into the IOs agenda due to criticism towards the pitfalls of cost-benefit analysis and a new understanding of the non-economic benefits of secondary education (Heyneman, 1995). Nonetheless, this time the vocationalization of secondary education was downplayed (The World Bank, 2005; UNESCO, 2005; UNESCO/OREALC, …show more content…
In contrast, diffusion theories explain how IOs disseminate their beliefs by coercive and non-coercive means, persuading states to follow an idea that is finally internalized by different societies (Finnemore, 1993; H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006; J. W. Meyer, 1977). Although these theories accept that a contentious process emerges when transnational actors challenge existing norms (Finnemore, 1998; Keck & Sikkink, 1999), this scholarship often assumes that once the new norm becomes globally accepted, states ultimately tend to take it for granted and emulate it. In this way, these theories overlook political contestation at the domestic level and do not explain what happens when a new globally accepted standard arrives at a domestic setting and is prepared by a domestic organization for its adoption (Campbell,
Moreover, as this paper will explain, this process of change is consistent with the propositions of the literature on organizational learning (Haas, 2000; Haas & Haas, 1995; Siebenhüner, 2008; Siebenhüner & Arnold, 2007). In the 1980s, different prominent IOs such as UNESCO, the World Bank (WB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), shifted from a strong emphasis on vocational secondary education to a preference for basic schooling (Benavot, 1983). This shift emerged as a result of new knowledge generated by cost-benefit assessments of vocational secondary education that revealed this kind of training as less efficient compared to basic schooling (Heyneman, 1987; Middleton, 1988; Psacharopoulos & Loxley, 1985). Later in the 2000s, secondary education was brought back into the IOs agenda due to criticism towards the pitfalls of cost-benefit analysis and a new understanding of the non-economic benefits of secondary education (Heyneman, 1995). Nonetheless, this time the vocationalization of secondary education was downplayed (The World Bank, 2005; UNESCO, 2005; UNESCO/OREALC, …show more content…
In contrast, diffusion theories explain how IOs disseminate their beliefs by coercive and non-coercive means, persuading states to follow an idea that is finally internalized by different societies (Finnemore, 1993; H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006; J. W. Meyer, 1977). Although these theories accept that a contentious process emerges when transnational actors challenge existing norms (Finnemore, 1998; Keck & Sikkink, 1999), this scholarship often assumes that once the new norm becomes globally accepted, states ultimately tend to take it for granted and emulate it. In this way, these theories overlook political contestation at the domestic level and do not explain what happens when a new globally accepted standard arrives at a domestic setting and is prepared by a domestic organization for its adoption (Campbell,