UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY STUDIES

ADMPS 3343: COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Fall 2012 (2131)

INSTRUCTOR: M. Najeeb Shafiq

Associate Professor of Economics and Education

CONTACT INFO.: Phone: (412) 648-1832

Room: 5907 Posvar Hall
Email: mnshafiq@pitt.edu

CLASS TIME: Tuesdays 7:15-9:55 PM

CLASS LOCATION: Posvar 5405

OFFICE HOURS: Mondays & Thursdays, 1:15-2:45 PM. To make an

appointment please leave an email message.

GRADUATE ASST.: Jessica Mason (jgm29@pitt.edu)

OVERVIEW

“The practical value of studying in a right spirit and with scholarly accuracy the working
of foreign systems of education is that it will result in our being better fitted to study and
understand our own.”
Michael Sadler, 1900
How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value from Study of Foreign Systems of Education,”
Reprinted in 1964 Comparative Education Review 7, pp. 307-314.

This introductory seminar on comparative education has two complementary goals. First,
it should provide students with some of the information and concepts necessary for
comparing different school systems, their contexts, and educational outcomes. Second,
the seminar should help students sharpen their own research and analytic skills for
independent, comparative insight about a specific education system (e.g. the American
education system). If these goals are achieved, students should be able to form
judgments about which aspects of a nation’s education system are unique to a particular
context (e.g., to the U.S.) and which aspects represent features found generally in other
schools throughout the world. This ability is important for educators who want to
improve education systems anywhere through policy.

Each class, we will cover a major topic in comparative education. A class will generally
consist of extensive discussions about a theoretical piece and another piece that provides
a test of the theory. Students will be exposed to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods of testing theories in comparative education. Because of this seminar’s courses
emphasis on testable theories, we will not cover several well-known contributions in
comparative education. We will also avoid theories and approaches that have limited
applicability for policy analysis.

REQUIRED READINGS AND PARTICIPANT RESPONSIBILITIES

The majority of readings will be made available through CourseWeb

(Blackboard) at http://courseweb.pitt.edu. Other readings will be distributed in class.
Optional readings will be made available upon request.

You are strongly encouraged to log into the CourseWeb (Blackboard) web site
each day prior to class to check for additional information and materials for class.

GRADING

Overview forms 25 points

Class attendance & participation 10 points
Take-home assignment 20 points
Research paper abstract & presentation 5 points
Final paper 40 points
100 points

Overview forms: Each class, it is imperative that members of the class read the assigned
readings in a timely (i.e., by the time class meets) and a professional or thorough fashion.
Members of the class will be asked to fill out an Overview Form for each assigned
reading prior to attending class (the form is provided by the instructor). The Form asks
students to: identify the questions examined in each reading, briefly describe the
fundamental ideas presented in the reading, set out the key findings of the reading, and
identify shortcomings of the arguments presented. Completion of the Overview Form is a
student’s ticket to attend class. This course requirement is aimed at ensuring lively and
insightful discussion during meetings of the class. The Forms will be graded check plus
or check minus.

Class attendance participation: Class participation is very important. Those who come to
class regularly, punctually, and prepared (and willing) to discuss the readings will get
maximum credit for class participation. Please contact the instructor if you are unable to
attend class. Another component of class participation are forums on CourseWeb
(Blackboard).

Take home assignment: The assignments will be take-home. You are free to consult your
notes and articles but may not consult with your colleagues. Take-home assignments
must be submitted via email to the instructor or GA. Points may be deducted for late
assignments.

2
Final paper: The purpose of the final paper is for students to develop a research topic that
can eventually evolve into a conference paper, masters thesis, or doctoral dissertation.
The section titles and double-spaced page lengths are as follows:
Section I: Introduction (1 page)
Section II: Conceptual Framework/ Theory (2 pages)
Section III: Background(s) of Region(s) and Education System(s) (2 pages)
Section IV: Critical Literature Review of Existing Research (6 pages that cite at least
8 articles)
Section V: Conclusion and Research Gap(s) (1 page)

ERIC (http://www.eric.ed.gov/) is an excellent source for finding relevant literature.

Final paper presentation: Using PowerPoint, students will present the essential points of
their papers to their colleagues in a 10-minute presentation on the last day of class.

Grading: A: 92.5-100; A-: 87.5-92; B+: 82.5-87; B: 77.5-82; B-: 72.5-77. If the standard
of an assignment or final paper does not meet minimum standards, you will be asked to
submit a revised version. The highest grade for a revised assignment is B.

The letter grades should be interpreted as follows:

A Outstanding achievement. B- Fair achievement.

A- Excellent achievement. C+ Not wholly satisfactory achievement.
B+ Very good achievement. C Marginal achievement.
B Good achievement C- Unsatisfactory achievement.
F Fail

FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

If you have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an

accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both your instructor and the Office of
Disability Resources and Services, 216 William Pitt Union, (412) 648-7890; (412) 383-
7355 (TTY) as early as possible in the term. DRS will verify your disability and
determine reasonable accommodations for this course.

DEPARTMENTAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

The purpose of grievance procedures is to ensure the rights and responsibilities of

faculty and students in their relationships with each other. When a student in ADMPS
believes that a faculty member has not met his or her obligations (as an instructor or in
another capacity) as described in the Academic Integrity Guidelines, the student should
follow the procedure described in the Guidelines by (1) first trying to resolve the matter
with the faculty member directly; (2) then, if needed, attempting to resolve the matter

3
through conversations with the chair/associate chair of the department; (3) if needed, next
talking to the associate dean of the school; and (4) if needed, filing a written statement of
charges with the school-level academic integrity officer. [Dean Jere Gallagher is the
Associate Dean and Integrity Officer.]

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Students in this course will be expected to comply with the University of

Pittsburgh's Policy on Academic Integrity. Any student suspected of violating this
obligation for any reason during the semester will be required to participate in the
procedural process, initiated at the instructor level, as outlined in the University
Guidelines on Academic Integrity. This may include, but is not limited to, the
confiscation of the examination of any individual suspected of violating University
Policy. Furthermore, no student may bring any unauthorized materials to an exam,
including dictionaries and programmable calculators.

DISABILITY SERVICES

If you have a disability that requires special testing accommodations or other

classroom modifications, you need to notify both the instructor and Disability Resources
and Services no later than the second week of the term. You may be asked to provide
documentation of your disability to determine the appropriateness of accommodations.
To notify Disability Resources and Services, call (412) 648-7890 (Voice or TTD) to
schedule an appointment. The Disability Resources and Services office is located in 140
William Pitt Union on the Oakland campus.

STATEMENT ON CLASSROOM RECORDING

To ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not record
classroom lectures, discussion and/or activities without the  advance written permission of
the instructor, and any such recording properly approved in advance can be used solely
for the student’s own private use.

4
 PRELIMINARY COURSE OUTLINE

Topic 1: Introduction
Tuesday, 28 August
Review of syllabus

Student introductions

(Optional) Collins, Randall (1994). “Prologue: The Rise of the Social Sciences,” in Four
Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Topic 2: The Origins and Usefulness of Comparative Education

Tuesday, 4 September
Phillips, David and Michele Schweisfurth (2008). “Chapter 1: Making Comparisons,” in
Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method, and
Practice, pp. 8-27. New York: Continuum.

Phillips, David and Michele Schweisfurth (2008). “Chapter 2: How Comparative

Education has Developed,” in Comparative and International Education: An Introduction
to Theory, Method, and Practice, pp. 28-42. New York: Continuum.

Farrell, Joseph (1979). “The Necessity of Comparisons in the Study of Education: The
Salience of Science and the Problem of Comparability,” Comparative Education Review
23(1), pp. 255-261.

(Optional) Noah, Harold and Max Eckstein (1969). Toward a Science of Comparative
Education. New York: Macmillan.

(Optional) Hayhoe, Ruth and Karen Mundy (2010). Introduction to Comparative and
International Education: Why Study Comparative Education?
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cidec/UserFiles/Media/Research/Issues_for_Teachers/ATA_
ChapterOne.mov

(Optional) Bray, Mark and R. Murray Thomas (1995). “Levels of Comparison in

Education: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel
Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 65(3), pp. 472-490.

(Optional) Rust, Val (2004). “Method and Methodology in Comparative Education,”

Comparative Education Review 47(3), iii-vii.

(Optional) Humphries, Jane (2003). “Child Labor: Lessons from the Historical
Experiences of Today’s Industrialized Countries,” World Bank Economic Review 17(2),
pp. 175-196.

5
(Optional) Sadler, Michael (1900). “How Far Can We Learn Anything of Practical Value
from Study of Foreign Systems of Education,” Reprinted in 1964 Comparative Education
Review 7, pp. 307-314.

(Optional) Tyack, David (1993). “Constructing Differences: Historical Reflections on

Schooling and Social Diversity,” Teachers College Record 95(1), pp. 8-35.

Topic 3: Human Capital Approach

Tuesday, 11 September
Schultz, Theodore (1961). “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review
51, pp. 1-17.

Psacharapoulos, George and Harry Patrinos (2004). “Returns to Investment in Education:

A Further Update,” Education Economics 12, pp. 111-134. (Focus on the tables only)

Levin, Henry (1984). “Assessing the Equalization Potential of Education,” Comparative

Education Review 28(1), pp. 11-27.

(Optional) Colclough, Christopher, Geeta Kingdon, and Harry Patrinos (2011). “The
Changing Patter of Wage Returns to Education and Its Implications,” Development
Policy Review 28(6), pp. 733-747.

(Optional) Pritchett, Lant (2001). “Where has all the Education Gone?” World Bank
Economic Review 15(3), pp. 367-391.

(Optional) Schultz, Theodore (1980). “Nobel Lecture: The Economics of Being Poor,”
Journal of Political Economy 88(4), pp. 639-651.

(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb (2007). “Household Schooling and Child Labor Decisions
in Rural Bangladesh,” Journal of Asian Economics 18(6), pp. 946-966.

Topic 3: Social Capital

Tuesday, 18 September
Coleman, James (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,” American
Journal of Sociology 94, pp. S95-S120.

Horvat, Erin, Elliot Weininger, and Annette Lareau (2003). “From Social Ties to Social
Capital: Class Differences in the Relations between Schools and Parent Networks,”
American Journal of Educational Research 40(2), pp. 319-351.

(Optional) Booth, Margaret (1996). “Parental Availability and Academic Achievement

among Swazi Rural Primary School Children,” Comparative Education Review 49(2), pp.
230-261.

6
(Optional) Chudgar, Amita & M. Najeeb Shafiq (2010). “The Impact of Home and
Community Factors on Schooling in South Asia,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education 40(4), pp. 517-534.

Topic 4: School Quality

Tuesday, 25 September
Levin, Henry (1992).“Effective Schools in Comparative Focus.” In Phillip Altbach,
Robert Arnove, and Gail Kelly (Eds.), Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative
Perspectives, pp. 229-248. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Heyneman, Stephen and William Loxley (1983). “The Effect of Primary-School Quality
on Academic Achievement Across Twenty-Nine High- and Low-Income Countries,”
American Journal of Sociology 88(6), pp. 1162-1194.

(Optional) Schiefelbein, Ernesto and Joseph Farrell (1978). “Selectivity and Survival in
the Schools of Chile,” Comparative Education Review 22(2), pp. 326-341.

(Optional) Wagner, Daniel (2010). “Quality of Education, Comparability, and Assesment

Choices in Developing Countries,” Compare 40(6), pp. 741-760.

Topic 5: Comparing The Roles of the 3 Capitals and School Quality

Tuesday, 2 October
Carnoy, Martin and Jeffrey Marshall (2005). “Comparing Cuban Academic Performance
with the Rest of Latin America,” Comparative Education Review 49(2), pp. 230-261.

Sorensen, Clark (1994). “Success and Education in South Korea,” Comparative

Education Review 38(1), pp. 10-35.

Meyer, John W. and David Baker (1996). “Forming American Education Policy with
International Data: Lessons from the Sociology of Education,” Sociology of Education
(extra issue), pp. 123-130.

(Optional) Schiefelbein, Ernesto and Joseph Farrell (1984). “Education and Occupational
Attainment in Chile: The Effect of Educational Quality, Attainment, and Achievement,”
American Journal of Education 92(2), pp. 125-162.

(Optional) Coleman, James (1975). “Equal Educational Opportunity,” Oxford Review of

Education 1(1), pp. 25-29.

(Optional) Heyneman, Stephen (2005). “Student Background and Student Achievement:

What is the Right Question?” American Journal of Education 112(1), pp. 1-9.

7
(Optional) Ogbu, John (1983). “Minority Status and Schooling in Plural Societies,”
Comparative Education Review 27(2), pp. 168-190.

(Optional) Xiang, Biao and Wei Shen (2009). “International Student Migration and
Social Stratification in China,” International Journal of Educational Development 29(5),
pp. 513-522.

Tuesday, 9 October 2012

** No Class—Fall Break

Topic 6: Alternative Student Outcomes

16 October 2012
Emler, Nicholas and Elizabeth Frazer (1999). “Politics: The Education Effect,” Oxford
Review of Education 25(1/2), pp. 251-273.

Shafiq, M. Najeeb & Karen Ross (2010). “Educational Attainment and Attitudes towards
War in Muslim Countries Contemplating War: The Cases of Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan,
and Turkey,” Journal of Development Studies 46(8), pp. 1424-1441.

(Optional) Bajaj, Monisha (2011). Schooling for Social Change: The Rise and Impact of
Human Rights Education in India. New York & London: Continuum Publishers.

(Optional) Carnoy, Martin (1975). “The Political Consequences of Manpower

Formation,” Comparative Education Review 19(1), pp. 115-128.

(Optional) Finkel, Steven (2002). “Civic Education and the Mobilization of Political
Participation in Developing Democracies,” Journal of Politics 64, pp. 994-1020.

(Optional) McGinn, Noel and Susan Street (1984). “Has Mexican Education Generated
Human or Political Capital?” Comparative Education 20(3), pp. 323-338.

(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb and Abdulkader Sinno (2010). “Education, Income, and
Attitudes on Suicide Bombing: Evidence from Six Muslim Countries,” Journal of
Conflict Resolution 54(1), pp. 146-178.

(Optional) Torney-Purta, Judith, Carolyn Barber, and Britt Wilkenfield (2006).

“Differences in the Civic Knowledge and Attitudes of Adolescents in the United States
by Immigrant Status and Hispanic Background,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education 36(3), pp. 343-354.

Topic 7: World Systems, Dependency, and Neocolonial Theories

23 October 2012

8
Ginsburg, Mark, Susan Cooper, Rajeshwari Raghu, and Hugo Zegarra (1990). “National
and World System Explanations of Educational Reform,” Comparative Education Review
34(4), pp. 474-499.

Altbach, Phillip (1977). “Servitude of the Mind? Education, Dependency, and Neo-
Colonialism,” Teachers College Record 79(2), pp. 187-203.

Samoff, Joel (1999). “Education Sector Analysis in Africa: Limited National Control and
Even Less National Ownership,” International Journal of Educational Development 19,
pp. 249-272.

(Optional) Arnove, Robert (1980). “Comparative Education and World Systems

Analysis,” Comparative Education Review 24(1), pp. 48-62.

(Optional) Carnoy, Martin (1974). “Education for Development or Domination?” In

Education and Cultural Imperialism, pp. 31-77. New York: Longmans.

Topic 9: Neo-Institutionalist Approaches

30 October 2012
Boli, John, Francisco Ramirez, and John Meyer (1985). “Explaining the Origins and
Expansion of Mass Education,” Comparative Education Review 29(2)

Meyer, John, Joane Nagel, and Conrad Snyder (1993). “The Expansion of Mass
Education in Botswana: Local and World Society Perspectives,” Comparative Education
Review 37(4), pp. 454-475.

(Optional) Astiz, Fernanda, Alexander Wiseman, and David Baker (2002). “Slouching
towards Decentralization: Consequences of Globalization for Curricular Control in
National Education Systems,” Comparative Education Review 46 (1) pp. 66–88.

(Optional) Baker, David and Gerald LeTendre (2005). National Differences, Global
Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

(Optional) Carney, Stephen, Jeremy Rappleye, and Iveta Silova (2012). “Between Faith
and Science: World Culture Theory and Comparative Education,” Comparative
Education Review 56(3), pp. 366-393.

(Optional) Meyer, John W. 2009. “Interview for Running with the Bulls: A Forum of
Sociological Conversations and Analyses.” Interview conducted November 3, 2009.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/running-with-the-bulls-a-forum-of-sociological-
conversations-and-analyses/john-meyer-interview/231223440855 (accessed August 23,
2012).

9
Topic 10: Decentralization
6 November 2012
McGinn, Noel and Luzete Pereira (1992). “Why States Change the Governance of
Education: A Historical Comparison of Brazil and the United States,” Comparative
Education 28(2), pp. 167-180.

Weiler, Hans (1990). “Comparative Perspectives on Educational Decentralization: An

Exercise in Contradiction,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(4), pp. 433-
438.

Chapman, David, Elizabeth Barcikowski, Michael Sowan, Emma Gyamera, and George
Woode (2002). “Do Communities Know Best? Testing a Premise of Educational
Decentralization: Community Members’ Perceptions of their Local Schools in Ghana,”
International Journal of Educational Development 22(2), pp. 181-189.

(Optional) Bjork, Chris (2003). “Local Responses to Decentralization Policy in

Indonesia,” Comparative Education Review 47(2), pp. 184-216.

(Optional) Gershberg, Alec (1999). “Education ‘Decentralization’ Processes in Mexico

and Nicaragua: Legislative versus Ministry-Led Reform Strategies,” Comparative
Education 35(1), pp. 63-80

(Optional) McGinn, Noel and Susan Street (1986). “Educational Decentralization: Weak
State or Strong State?” Comparative Education Review 30(4), pp. 471-490.

(Optional) Reimers, Fernando and Sergio Cardenas (2007). “Who Benefits from School-
Based Management in Mexico,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education
37(1), pp. 37-56.

(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb (2011). “Do School Incentives and Accountability

Measures Raise Skills in the Middle East and North Africa? The Cases of Jordan and
Tunisia,” Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 7(2), article 2.

Topic 11: School Choice and Privatization

13 November 2012
Levin, Henry (2002). “A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Educational
Vouchers,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, pp. 159-174.

Mattei, Paola (2012). “Market Accountability in Schools: Policy Reforms in England,

Germany, France, and Italy,” Oxford Review of Education 38(3), pp. 247-266.

(Optional) Alexandersson, Mikael (2011). “Equivalence and Choice in Combination: The

Swedish Dilemma,” Oxford Review of Education 37(2), pp. 195-214.

10
(Optional) Apple, Michael (2001). “Comparing Neo-Liberal Projects and Inequality in
Education,” Comparative Education 37(4), pp. 409-423.

(Optional) McEwan, Patrick and Martin Carnoy (1999). “The Effectiveness and
Efficiency of Private Schools in Chile’s Voucher System,” Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis 22(3), pp. 212-239.

(Optional) Ladd, Helen and Edward Fiske (2003). “Does Competition Improve Teaching
and Learning? Evidence from New Zealand,” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 25(1), pp. 97-112.

(Optional) Patrinos, Harry (2002), “Private Education Provision and Public Finance: The
Netherlands as a Possible Model”, Occasional Paper no. 59, National Center for the
Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb (2010). “Designing targeted educational voucher schemes

for the poor in developing countries,” International Review of Education 56(1), pp. 33-
50.

(Optional) Shafiq, M. Najeeb and John P. Myers (2012). “Sweden’s Educational Voucher
Plan and Student Civic Attitudes, 1999-2009,” working paper.

** Take home assignment distributed

20 November 2012
** No Class—Thanksgiving Break

Topic 12: Research for Policy

27 November 2012
Bereday, George (1977). “Comparative Analysis in Education,” Prospects: Quarterly
Review of Education 7(4), pp. 472-487.

Ginsburg, Mark and Jorge Gorostiaga (2001). “Relationships between

Theorists/Researchers and Policy Makers/Practitioners: Rethinking the Two-Cultures
Thesis and the Possibility of Dialogue,” Comparative Education Review 45(2), pp. 173-
196.

(Optional) Pscharopoulos, George (1986). “The Planning of Education: Where Do We

Stand,” Comparative Education Review 30(4), pp. 560-573.

(Optional) Noah, Harold and Max Eckstein (1989). “Tradeoffs in Examination Policies:
An International Comparative Perspective,” Oxford Review of Education 15(1), pp. 17-
27.

11
Topic 13: The Future of Comparative Education
4 December 2012
** Student Presentations

** Take-home assignment due in class

Noah, Harold (1984). “Uses and Abuses of Comparative Education,” Comparative

Education Review 28, pp. 153-163.

Klees, Steven (2008). “Reflections on Theory, Method, and Practice in Comparative and
International Education,” Comparative Education Review 52(3), pp. 301-328
Go to: http://cies.us/newsletter/may08/index_may08.htm.

Baker, David, Ruth Hayhoe, Stephen Heyneman, Keith Lewin, M. Najeeb Shafiq, Amy
Stambach, Nelly Stromquist and Fran Vavrus (2008). “Response to Steven Klees’
presidential address,” invited contributors, Newsletter of the Comparative and
International Education Society, May. Go to:
http://cies.us/newsletter/may08/index_may08.htm.

(Optional) Burde, Dana (2012). “Assessing the Impact and Bridging Methodological
Divides: Randomized Trials in Countries Affected by Conflict,” Comparative Education
Review 56(3), pp. 448-473.

(Optional) Heyneman, Stephen and Kathryn Anderson (2008). “A Quarter Century of

Getting It Right in Education: World-Wide Successes and Continuing Challenges,”
Globalization, Societies and Education 6(4), pp. 355-362.

(Optional) Psacharopoulos, George (1990). “Comparative Education: From Theory to

Practice, or Are You A: \neo.* or B:\*. ist?” Comparative Education Review 34(3), pp.
369-380.

(Optional) Psacharopoulos, George (1990). “From Rhetoric to Usefulness” Comparative

Education Review 34(3), pp. 401-404.

12