Become a Peer-reviewer for EdPitt
 
 
  

 

 

 


 

Premier Issue
 Vol 1. No. 1 - Spring 2004

 

 

Nagwa MEGAHED

Educational Reform in the context of National and Global Dynamics: A Look at Britain, the United States, and Egypt [1]

 

Abstract

Existing literature concerning educational reforms in different societies offers varying explanations of the effects of cultural, political and economic dynamics. In some cases, educational reform is viewed to be the interplay between political and economic spheres, recognizing its cultural dimensions. In other cases, reforming education is conceived of as a response to secularization and modernization movements seems to confront directly the cultural (including religious) heritage of a society. This paper examines national and global dynamics that have shaped educational reforms in the developed and developing countries, represented in the cases of Britain, the United States, and Egypt. Drawing from relevant theoretical and case study literature, the paper seeks an understanding of educational reform not only as a process of development but also as an “ideological and social struggle” that involves local, national and global actors.

Introduction
As the Second World War was brought to a close, universal access to primary and expanded access to secondary education became the major goals of educational reforms in both developed and developing countries. One perspective accounts for the educational expansion in relation to “the ideology of the state.” It refers to “the power and interest of national governments in organizing increasingly inclusive educational systems which enable the state to use the products of its system – educated students – to insure its maintenance” (Berman 1992, p. 57). From this “equilibrium” approach, educational reforms are initiated when there is a need to realign the system to better match the requirements of the changing economy, with changes in the economy and in education are seen as benefiting the society generally (Ginsburg et al, 1991; Sedere, 2000).
In contrast, in their analysis of educational reform, conflict theorists view this educational expansion to be a consequence of social struggle. As Ginsburg (1991, p.10) explains, "educational reform is seen to be part of on-going struggles between groups, whose interests are fundamentally in conflict and in the context of social relations that are inherently contradictory.”  For instance, Morrow and Torres (1999) examine how social movements, particularly of students and labor have continued to be a source of agitation against more or less authoritarian states that serve to reproduce vast inequality of income and opportunity. In that context, educational expansion is explained as a result of “competitive struggle between institutionalized corporate and potential primary actors, that is, those capable of collective action” (Morrow &Torres, 1999, p.103).
The equilibrium and conflict perspectives framed different explanations of educational reform can be found not only on the national level but also on the “world-system” level. The “equilibrium” perspective on the “world-system” level emphasizes cultural rather than economic factors. The global movement toward expand educational access was occurred, from this perspective, because less developed countries borrow structures and practices from the more developed nations and because of the less developed countries’ integration into networks of influence through which ideas and social forms diffuse (Ginsburg et al, 1991; Gottlieb, 1991).  For example, Berman (1992, p.58) mentions:
The period since the conclusion of World War II has witnessed the appearance of a network of international aid agencies linked to and located in the industrialized nations. A major concern of many of these agencies has been to help Third World nations reconceptualize, expand, and reform their educational systems.
In contrast from the “conflict” perspective on the world-system level, educational reform must be seen in the context of social and economic relations between the domination and subordination characteristic of the world capitalist system. In other words, educational reform is perceived as a component of local/global conflict between different social groups (Burbles & Torres, 2000; Ginsburg et al, 1991; Morrow & Torres, 2000; see: Sklair, 1995).
This paper focuses on educational reforms in Britain, the United States, and Egypt during the period from the post-World War II to the present. Attention is given to the (on-going) rhetoric between advocates and opponents of such reforms. Based on a review of relevant theoretical literature and case studies, I seek a better understanding of social and ideological aspects of the reforms as well as the different theoretical perspectives previously identified.
During the post-World War II period, developed countries had focused on maintaining their political power and recovering their economies. In contrast, many developing countries were struggling for their independence. Thus, in general, a principle of the education system was illustrated to create a loyal and competent citizen (i.e., needs of identity, affiliation, citizenship, and work roles) (Burbles & Torres, 2000). The economic situation made the majority of the population exclusively dependent on political manipulation for expressing its educational demands (Williamson, 1979). Therefore, the state particularly, in capitalist societies, was viewed as a form of government that “undertakes protectionist activities in the economy, support the growth of internal markets, and promotes import substitution as a central aspect of the model of articulation between the state and society…It [was also perceived as] a form of government in which the citizens [would] reach minimum levels of social welfare, including education, health, social security, employment, and housing” (Morrow & Torres, 1999, p.95). In the age of welfare state, the idea of expanding educational opportunities went beyond socializing individuals and citizens. It involved an approach of human capital investment, which dominated educational planning and development strategies in many countries until the 1980s (Fägerlind & Saha, 1997).
Educational Reform in Britain
In developed countries in the post-World War II, primary education was already compulsory and approaching universal access. Thus, educational reform focused on providing equal educational opportunities for students in secondary and tertiary education, specifically for disadvantaged groups, whether the disadvantage was based on socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, or some combination of these (Farrell, 1999).
In Britain, during a period of gradual collapse of its colonial empire, the government was serious about reconstructing secondary education. After a half-century of agitation by the Labour movement, the 1944 educational Act was issued as a measure largely agreed upon by the major political parties, organized educators and the churches (Archer, 1984; Miller & Ginsburg, 1991; Simon, 1991; Williamson, 1979).[2] “It laid the basis for system of free [education] for all and held out the promise of equality of opportunity in education irrespective of a child’s social background” (Williamson, 1979, p. 67). Simon (1991) considers that the 1944 Act defined secondary education, for the first time of British history, in terms of multilateral or comprehensive school system but at the same time legitimized a tripartite structure of secondary school.[3] Moreover, “no restructuring of fundamental character [of secondary education] was achieved. Nor was there any serious threat to the social order” (Simon, 1991, p.75) but what the Act did do, however, was to “create the necessary conditions for imposing tripartism…by creating a ministry [of education] to control and direct a national policy…and what the working class received was largely on the conservative term” (Archer, 1984, p. 147). During the 1950s it became clear that many children were leaving secondary schools before completing the full course and many of these early leavers were working-class children. By 1965 there was considerable evidence that, despite twenty years of growth, the “class gradient” of educational opportunities in Britain was still inconsistent with social justice. Thus, in that year the Ministry of Education in cooperation with the local authorities reorganized secondary education in comprehensive schools. Although by the mid-1970s approximately eighty percent of secondary school children were being taught in such schools there were subtle forms of educational differentiation taking place within the schools themselves (Archer, 1984; Miller & Ginsburg, 1991; Simon, 1991; Williamson, 1979).
Because of the successful involvement of institutionalized politically within the Labour Party in social reform and practical politics in Britain (Williamson, 1979), “a conservative backlash that had struggled for legitimacy developed in the later 1970s into a direct attack on comprehensive schooling on the grounds of falling standards” (Miller, Ginsburg, 1991, p. 57). During this time, Britain, as other countries, experienced inflation, cutbacks in public expenditure, and unemployment in the wake of the oil crisis of the 1973, which exposed the problems with equality, efficiency, and relevance in education particularly, the process of transferring children from school to work to improve the prospect of all young people in the labor market (Miller & Ginsburg, 1991; Williamson, 1979). Since this time, the role of the state in Britain has been changed from promoting minimum level of social welfare for its citizens to reducing its public expenditure on education as well on other social services. A movement to promote private corporations to supply social services in the public domain has been emerged with a new approach of educational reform, which strongly shaped by the United States neo-liberal ideology.[4] 
Educational Reform in the United States
In contrast to Britain, where the reform focused on the educational structure and the “comprehensivization” (Farrell, 1999) of secondary schools, educational reform in the United States concerned the curriculum and educational efficiency and involved both “progressive” and “conservative” movements.[5] For example, for years since 1945 debate in the United States centered on the value of schooling for “life-adjustment” (Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002). Advocates of vocational education declared that schools had failed to educate the majority of high school youth for the demand of modern life. They argued that those students needed a practical instruction in which the curriculum would not omit science, math, and the humanities but would stress hands-on experience and focus on contemporary problems (Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002). The importance of vocational instruction in public schools was usually framed in terms of the United States’ competitiveness with other industrialized nations (in historical order: Germany, Soviet Union, and Japan) (Martin, 1991; Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002). It was also shaped by a market orientated ideology, which views schools as a place of “educational experience that explicitly prepared students for a changing workplace… [and] corporate capitalist economic structure” (Martin, 1991, p. 345).[6]
Indeed, the life-adjustment curriculum was intended to make schooling more “relevant and functional,” but in the half decade after the war many of the courses that appeared in school districts around the country were under strong criticism because they did not achieve the high academic standard but it reflected a “powerful anti-intellectual bias.” Thus, a call for maintaining the academic standard in high schools was emerged and reached its highest level when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 (Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002; Nelson, Carlson, & Palonsky, 1996). In addition to the Soviet threat,[7] the issue of race discrimination confronted Americans with the movement of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, educational reform, since this time, has been directed to promote intellectual training, expressed in the notion of “excellence” (Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002; Nelson, Carlson, & Palonsky, 1996). During this time, excellence was a main cue word that showed up in many educational reports and statements, the theme to be repeated in the 1980s (see Martin, 1991). In addition, federal fund for educational reform were dramatically increased and education was considered “America’s first line of defense” (Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002, p.231). Funds were provided to improve teaching in science and math, foreign language, social studies, and English (see Good, 2000). Although these curricular reforms improved academic standard, a liberal criticism began to emerge as a response to “the rote memorization, excessive testing, lock-step schooling, and increased school dropout and failure rates that had begun to characterize schools” (Nelson, Carlson, and Palonsky, 1996, p.12). The conservative and liberal rhetoric has continued during the 1970s and 1980s to the present. That educational reform in the United States was dominated by conservative thought (i.e., standardization, stricter disciplines, teacher accountability, etc) liberal ideas of teacher empowerment, academic freedom, student rights, and social participation has not been obliterated (Martin, 1991; Nelson, Carlson, and Palonsky, 1996; Tozer, Violas, & Sense, 2002).
Educational reform in Britain and the United States, however, reflects the differences in their societal structures. Britain is a hierarchal society with a social division and different social strata (Williamson, 1979) whereas the United States is a highly regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse society (Martin, 1991). In the British case, educational system is highly centralized with a strong control by the Ministry of Education. In addition, Williams (1979) considers the British educational reform served to reproduce the “old social formation[/stratification]” because achieving equal educational opportunity has been associated with the individual abilities and background. In the United States, although there is long traditions of decentralization in the educational system many “radical educators” consider that reforming education for excellence will basically benefit advantaged students. They also criticize the absence of educational programs for the poor. Radical educators argue that such a case “would merely widen inequalities in the present unequal social and educational structures in the United States” (Martin, 1991, p. 353).
Educational Reform in Egypt
   The criticism of the British equal educational opportunity and the United States excellence ideology does not prevent many developing countries form adopting them in their educational reforms, which is expressed recently in the notion of “excellence for all” (Sedere, 2000). As mentioned earlier, from the world-system level equilibrium perspective, this is partly because of the role of international organizations which are linked to and located in the industrialized nations. Moreover, “educational reforms such as those occurring in the pace-setting countries of the world – e.g., the United States and Great Britain – often function as a source model for national educational reform programs elsewhere in the world” (Gottlieb, 1991, p. 317). As Gottlieb (1991) argues industrialized countries in their relative positions in a world system of knowledge production and circulation are the exporters whereas other nations are followers and importers of knowledge including educational reform programs. In contrast from the world-system level conflict perspective, this case is viewed as a form of “Western cultural imperialism” (Daun & Arjmand, 2002) particularly by radical and fundamentalist (political left and religious) groups in some developing countries. They reject the secularization and modernization of educational system that adopted the western ideology. For example, in the Arab States where there is a level of common cultural ground (generally based on language and religion), Daun and Arjmand (2002, p.208) mention:
Modernization came with colonialism. It was accepted to the extent that it brought economic growth and a better material standard of living. However, the price for material progress tended to be increased economic and political differentiation, stratification, individualization and secularization. ‘Modern’ was translated by many Muslim leaders as a drive to acquire Western education, technology and industry and to accept or adapt to the tendency toward secularization, individualization, and privatization. These features came to be perceived as Westernization and were, therefore, rejected. 
            Educational reforms in the Arab countries are shaped by external and internal political, economic, and cultural dynamics and/or conflicts. The current status of education in these countries is considered “the product of repeated and dramatic changes…: the establishment of independent nation-states, the boom and decline of Arab oil wealth, and a series of wars, internal conflicts, and revolutions” (Christina, Mehran, & Mir, 1999, p.345). In that context, educational reform is viewed as a component of national struggle for socioeconomic development and cultural identity, as it will be presented in the case of Egypt.               
The post- World War II in Arab countries was a time of collective actions that called for complete independence from the French colonialism in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon and Syria and from the British colonialism in Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq. Political independence from the colonial powers was gradually achieved in these countries during the 1950s and the 1960s.[8] Politically, the colonial powers had constructed a secular legal system. Although with independence none of these countries replaced the secular laws by the religious/Islamic laws (Shariá), there were attempts to integrate some Shariá elements into the secular laws. Obviously, the case is different of Saudi Arabia, where the domination is for the Shariá, considering that Saudi Arabia was never colonized (Daun & Arjmand, 2002). Educationally, there have also been differences between secular and religious systems and curricular in the Arab countries. Across the region with the establishment of independent nation-states, there were “commitments to welfare state models supported both by the influence of Western state theories and the social welfare ethos within Islam…[In addition,] the provision of free public education was quickly established as a responsibility of the state and the right of citizenry” (Christina, Mehran, & Mir, 1999, p.347).
In Egypt, the rhetoric of secularization and religious educational system began in 1805. In order to avoid confronting the religious scholars and groups in the country, Muhammad Ali, the leader of Egypt under the Ottoman Empire, constructed a secular educational system that paralleled al-Azhar, the major educational, religious, and independent institution in Egypt and the region at that time. The main task of that educational reform of secularization was to serve the military establishment by supplying the Egyptian army with engineers, doctors, pharmacists, etc. The secular educational system, patterned on the European model, was affiliated to the Ministry of Defense until 1836 when a new educational department was established (Ali, 1985, Shaban, 1981). Schooling at all levels was provided free of charge. In addition, the state provided the cost of living for students. Until the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, there were 270 government primary schools, 200 private European schools, and many private Egyptian schools. The British authority reduced educational expenditure, began charging tuition fees for primary and secondary schools, and consolidated, if not abolished, the higher institutes (Ali, 1985; Ali, 1974; Shaban, 1981). Even when Egypt became a semi-independent state in 1922 and before the complete independence by the 1952 revolution, the educational system in Egypt continued to be guided by the British vision of “social elitism” and “duality” to a large extent.[9] This duality was between elementary schools and primary schools [10]; vocational and academic secondary schools; public and private schools; and over all secular and religious schools (Shaban, 1981; Ali & Hassan 1983). In regard to this dualism, Said Ali (1989) asserts:
With the introduction of modern European education in the early nineteenth century, Egyptian society began to divide into two distinct halves. One half retained the traditional system imbued with Islamic teaching, while the other half modeled itself after Europe…The division was not simply an ideological differences between traditional religious schools and those of modern civilization, but [one] that it extended and produced personalities carrying two different cultural style (Ali, 1989, cited in: Cook, 2001, p.405).
After the 1952 revolution, educational reform was directed to abolish such dualisms in order to provide equal educational opportunities for all children based on their abilities and to achieve social homogeneity for the Egyptian people and to enhance secularization. The division between religious and secular education have been abolished (Shaban, 1981) and even al-Azahar has come under secular state control, an action that was criticized by religious scholars and radical Islamic groups in the country (Ibrahim, 1987).[11] Moreover, in line with the revolution’s principles of social justice and equity, the educational system as a whole was expanded rapidly. Although all levels of education were offered free of charge (Richards, 1992, p. ii) radical educators criticized the intellectual basis for selecting students for post-primary education. Beyond primary education, the admission to secondary schools has been based on student abilities and capacities. The hierarchical division between academic and vocational secondary schools has been continued, it is argued, in order to meet the requirements of the economy specifically and the society generally. This was also due to Al-Qabbany’s (the Minister of Education from 1952 to 1954) policy of education, which was termed “the intellectual elitism” (Shaban, 1981; Ali, 1985).[12] This policy has been viewed to contradict the 1952 revolution’s principle, which is promoting the equal rights for each individual to be educated at highest level, the dilemma to be continued and repeated in the 1980s and 1990s (El-Shikhaby, 1983; Ministry of Education, 1999).
Overall, the cumulative effect of the 1950s and 1960s policies (in the context of rapid population growth, free education at all levels, government employment for any university graduate since 1964, and series of wars1948, 1956, 1967) is said to include a high economic cost in terms of expansionary budget and increased market distortions. Furthermore, the government failed in its stated goal of eliminating poverty; absolute poverty has remained at a high level,[13] although a social mobility survey conducted in 1979 indicated that education was a strong factor in promoting upward social mobility during the Nasser era (World Bank, 1991).[14]
The Government of Egypt announced an "Open Door Policy" in 1974 to attract foreign capitalist investment, particularly form Europe and North America. After a decade of rapid economic growth, Egypt experienced a sharp economic crisis because of the oil boom of the 1980s[15] and “macroeconomic disequilibria” was emerged (World Bank, 1991; Al-Mashat & Grigorian, 1998).[16]  The economic situation (with government employment guaranteed for graduates) meant that full employment was achieved by the over staffing government bureaucracies and public enterprises, educational policy was directed to restrict university enrollments, and unemployment began to rise particularly among secondary education graduates. “In 1986, secondary and post-secondary graduates represented 84% of open unemployment, roughly 1 million out of 1.2 million unemployed” (World Bank, 1991, pp. 52 and 53). [17] In spite of government efforts on reforming secondary education and particularly vocational schools (see Gill, &  Heyneman, 2000; Megahed, 2002), by the 1990s the educational policy was highly criticized for the lack of educational quality at all levels and wide inequality between students in secondary education because of the duality of academic and vocational schools (Program Planning & Monitoring Unit, 2002). In 1997, the government of Egypt developed a comprehensive educational reform of secondary schools, which converted many vocational/commercial schools to academic schools in order to expand and promote more equitable access to higher education.  
For some scholars, the problem of inequality in the Egyptian educational system is rooted into the (hierarchical) character of the Egyptian society; the educational system has to adjust itself to this state of affair (Shaban, 1981). For others, the inequality was reinforced by the British occupation, which created a political elite enamored with all that was Western. Even after the 1952 revolution and its goals of nationalism and social justice and equity, restructuring the education system was shaped by the “intellectual elitism” approach that was drawn from the British ideology and the American educational theories of testing, selecting, and individual differences in learning abilities and skills (Ali, 1989; Cook, 2002).
Conclusions
Examining educational reform in developed countries (represented in Britain and the United States) and developing countries (represented in Egypt – Arab World) provided varying explanations of why and how educational reform occurred in certain context during certain historical period. The discussion of the reforms in these countries was drawn primarily on two perspectives on analyzing educational reform: equilibrium or conflict perspectives on national and world-system levels.
 One might argue that the structural and curriculum reforms taken place in Britain and the United States are simply considered a response and/or consequence of the social and economic changes occurred in these two countries after World War II.  In addition, the secularization of education system in the Arab World and Egypt is a result of cultural influence that developing countries import educational structures and practices from the advanced societies. 
Nevertheless, another interpretation could be made if these reforms are perceived as a component of ideological, social and economic struggle between different groups. For example, in Britain and the United States the reforms were framed, at least in part, by the competition between industrialized nations as well as the conflict between conservative and progressive groups. Moreover, in Egypt the education reform toward secularization has involved a conflict between fundamental religious and radical groups and politicians. In that sense, the reform could be seen as a part of global movement that tented to promote the world capitalist system and Western culture, which incorporated a level of resistance and struggle.
Overall, examining different ideological perspectives on analyzing educational reform in different societies promotes an understanding of such reform that goes beyond considering it as only a mechanism of development.   
 
References
 
Ali, S. (1989). Humum Al_Taάleem Al_ Massry (Concerns of Egyptian Education). Cairo, Egypt: Al_Ahram Publication (Arabic).
Ali, S. 1985. Tarikh Al_Tarbiah wa Al_Taάleem fi Massar (History of Education and Teaching in Egypt). Cairo, Egypt: Alam Al_Kutob (Arabic).
Ali, S. & Hassan, Z. (1983). Tatawur Eάdad Al_Mάlem fi Massar (The Development of Teacher Preparation in Egypt). Cairo, Egypt: Dar Al_Thakafa Liltebaάh wa Al_Nasher (Arabic).
Ali, S. (1974). Qadaiah Tarbawiah fi Zaman Al_Ehtelal (Educational Issues during the Colonialism). Cairo, Egypt: Alam Al_Kutob (Arabic).
Al-Mashat, R. and D. Grigorian. (1998). Economic Reforms in Egypt: Emerging Patterns and Their Possible Implications. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Archer, M. (1984). Social Origins of Educational Systems. London: SAGE Publications.
Berman, E. (1992). Donor Agencies and Third World Educational Development, 1945 – 1885. (Pp. 57 – 74) in R. Arnove., P. Altbach., and G. Kelly (Eds.). Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Burbules, N., & Torres. C. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical perspectives. New York & London: Routledge.
Christina, R., Mehran, G., & Mir, S. (1999) Education in the Middle East: challenging and Opportunities. (Pp. 345 – 370) in R. Arnove., & C. Torrers (Eds.). Comparative Education: The dialectic of the global and local. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Inc.
Cook, Bradly. 2001. “Islam and Egyptian Higher Education: Student Attitudes.” Comparative Education Review 45, no. 3: 339-411.
Daun, H., & Arjimand, R. (2002). Arab countries: Oil boom, religious revival, and non-reform. (Pp. 205 – 225) in H. Daun (Ed). Educational Restructuring in the context of Globalization and National Policy. New York: Routledge Falmer.
El-Shikhaby, A. (1983). Socioeconomic Status and Students’ Placement in Public Secondary Schools in Egypt (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 2593, DAI-A 44/08. 1984.
Fägerlind, I., & Saha, L., (1997). Education and National Development: Comparative perspective. (2nd ed.).Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Farrell, J. (1999). Changing Conceptions of Equality of Education: Forty years of comparative evidence. (Pp. 149 – 178) in R. Arnove., & C. Torrers (Eds.). Comparative Education: The dialectic of the global and local. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Inc.
Gill, I.,  &  Heyneman, S. (2000). Arab Republic of Egypt. (Pp. 401 – 429) in Gill. Indermit et al. (Eds.), Matching skills to markets and budgets. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ginsburg, M. (1991). Preface. (Pp. xv – xx) In M. Ginsburg (Ed.) Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology and the State. New York: Garland.
Ginsburg, M., Cooper, S., Raghu, R., & Zegarra, H. (1991). Educational Reform: Social Struggle, the State and the World Economic System. (Pp. 3 – 48) in M. Ginsburg (Ed.) Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology and the State. New York: Garland.
Ginsburg, M. & Megahed, N. (2002). What Should We Tell Educators about Terrorism and Islam: Some Considerations in Global Context after September 11. Educational Studies [33 (3), Fall]
Good, T. (Ed.). (2000). American Education: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Gottlieb, E. (1991). Global Rhetoric, Local Policy: A case study of Israeli education and teacher training. (Pp. 317 – 340) in M. Ginsburg (Ed.) Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology and the State. New York: Garland. 
Hogan, D. (1996). “To Better Our Condition”: Educational Credentialing and “the Silent Compulsion of economic relations” in the United States, 1830 to the present. History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3, fall 1996, (pp. 243 – 270).
Ibrahim, I. 1987. “Religion and Politics under Nasser and Sadat, 1952 – 1981.” (Pp. 121 – 134) in B. Stowasser (Ed.) The Islamic Impulse. London: Croom Helm.
Nelson, J., Carlson, K., & Palonsky, S. (1996). Critical Issues in Education: A dialectic approach (3rd ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. 
Martin, D. (1991). The Political Economy of School Reform in the United States. (Pp. 341 - 368) in M. Ginsburg (Ed.). Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology and the State. New York: Garland.
Megahed, N. (2002). Secondary Education Reforms in Egypt: Rectifying Inequality of Educational and Employment Opportunities. (Pp 44 -71) in C. Acedo (ed.). Case Studies in Secondary Education Reform. Improving Educational Quality (IEQ) Project. USAID Publications.  
Miller, H., & Ginsburg, M. (1991). Restructuring Education and the State in England. (Pp. 49 – 84) in M. Ginsburg (Ed.). Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology and the State. New York: Garland.
Ministry of Education, Arab Republic of Egypt. (1999). Secondary education reform
          program. Cairo, Egypt.
Morrow, R., & Torres, C. (1999). The State, Social Movements, and Educational Reform. (Pp. 91 – 113) in R. Arnove., & C. Torrers (Eds.). Comparative Education: The dialectic of the global and local. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Morrow, R., & Torres, C. (2000). The State, Globalization, and Educational Policy. (Pp. 27 – 56) in N. Burbules., & C. Torres (Eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical perspectives. New York & London: Routledge.
Program Planning & Monitoring Unit, Arab Republic of Egypt. (1998). Secondary  education reform program: Preparation for a national conference on secondary education. Cairo, Egypt.
Richards. A. (1992). Higher education in Egypt. World Bank Working Paper. 
Sedere, U. (2000). Globalization and the Low Income Economies: Reforming  
            education, the crisis of vision. USA: Universal Publishers.
Simon, B. (1991). Education and the Social order 1940 – 1990. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Shaban, A. (1981). Social Justice and Efficiency in Egyptian Education: A Critical Investigation of the Bases of the Egyptian Educational Philosophy, 1952 to the Present. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1981).
Sklair, L. (1995). Sociology of the Global System. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2002). School and Society: Historical and contemporary perspectives (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Williamson, B. (1979). Education, Social Structure and Development: A comparative analysis. New York: Holmes & Meier Publications.
World Bank. (1991). Egypt: Alleviating poverty during structural adjustment. World  Bank Country Study.
USAID/EGYPT. (2000). Economic growth activities. [On-line]. Available: http://www.usaid.gov/eg/index.htm
 
[1] This paper was presented at the Council of Graduate Students in Education research conference, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, March 25 – 26, 2003.
[2] The 1944 Act was promoted by the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Board of Education (established in 1899 and renamed a Ministry of Education by the 1944 Act), local education authorities, the National Union of Teachers (established in 1870 and founded as an organized voice and collective body for teachers and other teacher organizations (Miller & Ginsburg, 1991; Simon, 1991).   
[3] Simon (1991) explains that “Although successful in achieving the single code of regulations for secondary education, [the 1944 Act]  was, generally speaking, defeated on the concept of the single secondary school…in effect, after all the discussion and legislation, the country emerged with an hierarchical education structure almost precisely as planned and developed in the mid-late nineteenth century…This still comprised five (or even six) grades or levels, serving differentiated social strata. First, the established system of public school at the top; second, the direct grant schools, having won the right to charge fees, survived unscathed; third, the grammar schools – the elite group within the maintained (or grant-aided) sector; fourth, technical, some central and other types of trade schools; and fifth (for the masses) the pre-war senior elementary schools now to be known as ‘secondary modern” (p.74).
[4] “Generally and with increasing clarity and strength, the Conservative governments beginning in 1979 exhibited an attitude to public expenditure on social services inspired by a fairly crude monetarist economic philosophy following the U.S. economist, Milton Friedman. From this perspective these social service activities were seen as essentially parasitic or at least dependent on the wealth producing private sector” (Miller & Ginsburg, 1991, p. 62).
[5] As Martin (1991) explains, “When conservative values emphasizing private interests and individual competition were dominant in the 1920s, 1950s, and 1980s, reform efforts were oriented to having schools stress higher academic standards, efficiency, orderliness, and achievement. When liberal political values, emphasizing equality of opportunity for male and female children of different social class and racial/ethnic groups, generally prevailed in the 1930s and the 1960s, educational reforms were concerned more with issues of promoting access and reducing institutional biases” (p. 347).
[6] Hogan (1996) highlights this issue historically to be rooted in the time of American industrial…revolution when the development constituted the process of “proletarianization.” He argues that “the market revolution affected education by creating spatially differentiated and stratified opportunity structures and subordinating the social geography of the urban landscape to the sovereign logic of capital accumulation and private property” (Hogan, 1996, p. 248).
[7] The threat of the Soviet Union also included expanding and spreading communist ideology around the globe, which would bring particularly disturbed American multinational companies that had extended their operations to dozens of countries abroad. As Tozer, Violas, & Sense (2002) explain, “Fearing the political and economic consequences of communist expansion by the Soviet Unions…overshadowed almost every institution in American life. Schools were no exception; teachers were increasingly required to take loyalty oaths and forswear any involvement in the Communist party…Although fears of communist infiltration lessened considerably after the mid-1950s, for the next two decades American foreign policy continued to be based on the ideological split between the two superpowers and the premise that the Soviets were intent on spreading communism around the globe” (p. 221)
[8]  Note that the end of British colonialism in Palestine was associated with and replaced by the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
[9] Primary education until 1944 and secondary education until 1950 were charged fee and were out of reach most Egyptian citizens (Shaban, 1981). 
[10]  The elementary schools provided a terminal education for the masses and became compulsory in 1923, whereas primary schools led to secondary education (Shaban 1981).
[11] The secularization policy was, also, said to be a reason for the internal conflict between the Government of Egypt and the radical Islamic groups (the Muslim Brotherhood) in the country, especially with the increasing military and economic influence of the Soviet Union, which was considered an atheist empire (see Ginsburg & Megahed, 2002).   
[12]Al_Qabbany was fascinated by Dewey’s philosophy. He believed that Dewey’s philosophy had a prominent impact upon the development of the educational theories, not only in America but also in the whole world. Al-Qabbany shaped the educational system by the experimental approach which is based testing, selecting and differentiating students on the basis of their proven abilities. According to Al_Qabbany, post-primary education has to be differentiated and children should be selected for secondary schools on the basis of their abilities (Ali, 1989; Shaban, 1981).
[13] The lack of access to productive assets, notably land in rural areas, and the unavailability of alternative sources of steady income through regular wage employment explain the persistence of chronic poverty among potentially productive groups. By the 1974 - 75 the proportion of poor households was 44.0% and 35.5% for the rural and urban areas respectively (World Bank, 1991, pp. xvi and 6).
[14] Gamal Abd-El-Nasser was the president of Egypt from 1952 to 1970 (Al-Mashat & Grigorian, 1998).
[15] The value of petroleum sales fell from $2.9 billion in 1983 to $1.36 billion in 1987. Oil’s share of total exports in Egypt fell from 70% in 1983 to just less than 50% in 1987. Other traded goods failed to take up the slack created by the decline of oil. (Richards, 1992, p. 2) 
[16] The inflation rates rose significantly from 8% in 1983 to 16% in 1985 and to around 22% in 1991.
[17] Since 1985, the labor force has grown faster than the population. Its growth at an average rate of 5% per annum reflects the rising number of youths and women entering the labor force. The major reason is the “baby boom” after the October War of 1973 (World Bank 1991; Richards, 1992, p.  4).