Will Brehm  0:00
Gita Steiner-Khamsi, welcome back to FreshEd.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  1:13
It’s wonderful to speak to you.

Will Brehm  1:15
So, I want to start by sort of thinking about a global education reform known as the school autonomy with accountability (SAWA), which I think Toni Verger and his colleagues have sort of popularized quite a lot. But can you tell us briefly, sort of what this reform package is?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  1:31
The term is something that Toni Verger came up with, but the term itself is something that the OECD and the World Bank popularized. The difference between what the Barcelona group does and what OECD and the World Bank did is OECD called it autonomy and accountability, and then the World Bank even added assessment -accountability, autonomy, assessment. I think the sequence matters actually, because assessment came in last. It was not there from the beginning. And that’s my big point about the temporal dimension -it’s a script that evolved over time. It started with the decentralization of finance and of management, and then part of that decentralization was to promote private sector engagement, private sector involvement, deregulation. Once deregulation created all this inequality and the lowering of quality, it changed towards also having quality as a focus. And with the focus on quality, it became a matter of monitoring quality and the outcomes of schooling. So, it moved into assessment. So, the good thing about this -which it sounds like a detail, but it’s not a detail. It is autonomy. It became autonomy under the condition that there is accountability. And the accountability meant external evaluation, eventually it meant standardized tests -it wasn’t in the beginning, it meant actually school boards having demand side accountability at the school level. So, I look at it as a reform package, and the first time I looked at a reform as a package was actually with Iveta Silova when we looked at the post-communist region, where she knows the language and is from, and I worked in Mongolia and Central Asia. We brought policy analysts together and asked them about the reform package that they were confronted with. And this was like in the 1990s early millennium, and it was really a package, because they all had the same point of departure. It was about extending the duration of schooling. It was about bringing student-centered learning. It was about deregulation of higher education. It was privatization. So, we were comparing the different trajectories of the countries. So, that project is actually 20 years old, that we started to look at the fundamental reform as a package rather than as one policy. And the only difference that I did now is I just took it to the global level rather than the regional level. And because the school autonomy with accountability, reform is done, is complete, it’s a good time to look back and look at how different countries adopted parts of it. The other thing that is new, it’s not just a policy, and it is a bundle of policies, specific policy instruments and a specific theory of change. Again, others, and there was a really great conference in Barcelona on the instrument approach in policy studies. Others talked about the policy instruments. We don’t quite, agree on the definition. I think I see it a little bit different. I look at it very much as a policy person, that a government has basically five instruments of governing -and this is the old theory by Christopher Hood. One is to use legislative changes, one is to have incentives for change by budget -giving money, grants, etc-, one is information, and one is contracting, and the fifth one became the one that almost overshadows now all others, which is outcomes based regulation, or what Sotiria Grek and Jenny Ozga call “governance by numbers”, or others like [Jaco ?]calls “governing at a distance” and all of that. So, this is what I mean about policy instruments. So, a reform package has a bundle of policies. It has at least five policy instruments with different weights depending on the reform and it has -and this is the term that I’ve introduced, and others are using it now- it’s own theory of change, if it is a fundamental reform. And SAWA was a fundamental reform because, according to Peter Hall -the 1993 piece- it is a change in policy goal. Before that, the emphasis was on equal opportunity, and afterwards it moved towards quality. And so, it changed the goal, and that’s why it’s a fundamental reform.

Will Brehm  6:28
And I want to just dig into that briefly. And I guess this is where this theory of change comes in. I guess the question is; what is the purpose of school autonomy with accountability? And I think you just answered it about this notion of quality, but it goes into the heart of a particular theory of change that this reform package would entail. Can you tell me a little bit more about that shift from equal opportunity to quality? Because it seems like this is a really important change that happened with the SAWA reform package.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  6:56
For me, the temporal dimension of a reform is really important. It’s important to understand in which contexts it resonated. Because remember, in policy transfer, we always look into reception and translation. Why was there a receptiveness in the first place? And the context of the 1980s -and that’s when I myself worked in the Ministry of Education, actually, and I remember that really well- was educational expansion globally, everywhere. If you just look at it statistically, in 1960, the average years of schooling or educational attainment was 3.7 years globally. That’s like nothing. And then like by 2020 it was 7.4 so it doubled. It means that more and more people globally went to school for a longer time, and more groups of people. Just remember a couple of decades ago, people with special needs were excluded from schooling in many countries. So, girls were excluded. So, it was an inclusive education movement and an expansion. It was very expensive. It was very expensive. Governments could not handle it. They could not handle it in terms of management, but also finance. So, what governments did -they did all kinds of stuff. China did a low-fee public school model, where they decentralized. They allowed communities and provinces to charge small fees from parents. Others promoted community schooling. This was the area where governments were experimenting with all kinds of measures to allow for education expansion. And in 1990, Education for All accelerated that. Then came someone like Milton Friedman, a real conservative who said, you can do with the same money double because you will have efficiency gain if you give vouchers and allow the private sector also to offer school. And he had, like the soap or airline model in mind that if you increase the provision and the consumer and the parent can choose, the product becomes cheaper. So, according to his calculation, and Martin Carnoy shows that really nicely in his new book, The Political Economy of Education, he calculated based on the example of California, that the per student cost would reduce by half if you allow for competition. And so, first it was all about the efficiency gain. I mean, we’re talking about gain in terms of dollars or money. Afterwards it was then that there was a whole superstructure that it’s not only an efficiency game, it’s also a quality game if you have schools compete with each other. Because once you have per capita financing, once you publicize the results of schools, once you let schools attract students and have school-based management -it’s like a whole bundle of policy. Once you have that, schools that are doing well will attract more customers, and schools that are not doing well will close shop. And that’s why -I mean, there was the whole promise and Jason Beech and Susan Robertson talk about “promises, promises”. It was one of those promises, promises, but the promises promises -and that’s really important to keep that in mind- they were promoted by the OECD and the World Bank. They were the champions of those promises about efficiency gains and quality gains if you deregulate, decentralize and allow the private sector to come in. We know it turned out differently eventually.

Will Brehm  10:39
So, the idea here is that if a government were to follow the SAWA reform package, they can sort of reach the holy grail of efficiency and quality through competition. It’s these buzzwords that we’ve heard for so long and seem so empty, but in the 1980s and the 1990s it sort of was doctrine. People were really sort of drinking the Kool Aid, so to speak.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  11:01
I mean, it is important to keep in mind this was the time of the social welfare state, and it was a time with a big government. So, part of that reform new public management (NPM) -and we only talk about new public management, but it was also new public procurement. And this became very clear in this great study that I was allowed to work with, with two Icelandic colleagues, Kolfinna Jóhannesdóttir and Berglind Rós Magnúsdóttir, they found a document from the Ministry of Finance of Iceland that instructed the Ministry of Education, plus four other line ministries to say, and it said, we are heading towards new procurement laws, and we want you to help us to define, what are the services that you’re having, what are the expected outcomes, what is the per unit cost? And it’s not just in the Ministry of Education, it’s the Fishery Ministry, it is the Transportation Ministry. So, all of them, [The One School?], and [Johannes daughter?], one of the authors, she is  rector of [the one school?], she had that document given to her by a colleague from the Teachers Association. They sat together, and they had to start to define how to outsource, how to make contracts with private providers. That was the beginning of datafication in education, because you had to calculate per student cost, you had to define what are pedagogical services? What are they? How do you measure the quality of pedagogical services? And this had to be done because the closed circuit of the public provider was broken. Once you have private providers come in the private sector, you have to have some kind of contract with expected outcomes, with the cost calculation, et cetera. So, it became a completely new ballpark. And for me that was important to see that there was a handover from the Ministry of Finance. The whole NPM reform was driven by ministries of finance and by OECD, and it was handed over to the line ministries, including Ministry of Education.

Will Brehm  13:10
So, what you’re beginning to sort of articulate here -and I think this is actually what we spoke about five years ago, when you were last on FreshEd- was about how the state itself fundamentally starts to change when this is happening basically.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  13:22
Yes, exactly. But the one thing that I think some colleagues have wrong is they always look at SAWA as a conservative reform movement. It started as free market, quasi-market. It started with this Friedmanian approach to education, like with vouchers, and privatization, deregulatiot. But this was under Thatcher and Reagan, and it came from Australia and New Zealand, actually. But let me just talk about for a moment about Thatcher and Reagan, but then, when the disaster hit, and inequality was rampant, and the quality -there were all these dumping schools that, you know, parents had the choice, but didn’t choose. They couldn’t. They didn’t have the information, they had to enroll their children into a neighborhood school that then became what [Amy Stewart Wells?] calls “dumping grounds”. So, because of this huge inequality, the following government that were the new labor, Blair in the UK and Clinton in the US, they became what I call the interventionist state. They re-regulated, and they are the ones that promoted testing, quality control, et cetera. So, this accountability actually came afterwards. Milton and the hardcore market people, they thought the state shouldn’t do anything. The market regulates everything. There is no need for a state. At one point, Reagan wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. That’s how extreme it was. And Thatcher also; they thought the market, people, the consumer choice matters, and that’s all that does. So, the idea to use standardized tests is not a conservative move. It is a way to save public education. To say we have to accredit these private sector providers. And then as a compromise, and, you know, Anthony Giddens with “the third way”, it was new labor. It was not labor. It was new labor. That new labor means they believed in public-private partnership. They believed that the private sector is there to stay. But the way as a compromise was that everyone has to get accredited -public and private schools, public and private universities, and that was like a way to re-regulate. So, that’s why the sequence matters. First it was NPM, and first it was deregulation, and we showed that very nicely in the Icelandic paper. Then it was school autonomy, and then it was accountability. And of course, some countries bought into some aspects of it and did not buy into others.

Will Brehm  16:10
So, it’s not only the sequence, it’s that sort of partial implementation or adoption of sort of, you don’t have to say, I’m going to take the whole policy package, or reform package, or bundle. I’m going to take bits and pieces based on the sort of domestic politics at the moment. So, what did you find in Iceland, or in other cases? How do we understand some of this partial adoption?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  16:34
The reason why -I’m not from Iceland. So, the reason -I had my sabbatical this year, so I spent it in Japan at Kobe University. I spent three months in Iceland funded by Fulbright and at Stanford, and it was all related to this project, trying to compare SAWA as a global script and look how it played out in different countries, but also how the script itself changed. What I found in Iceland together with [Johannes daughter and Magnus daughter?], that was very interesting was I always assumed that the professionalization of school management was universal, and that was from that package, one of the things that started in many countries. I was in Switzerland at the time, and I could see how this is happening. How school directors used to be in many countries, teachers that would have been released for a couple of hours, especially at the primary school level, and then they would just do school management. However, with this whole idea of decentralization and school based management, there was a professionalization of school management. They were not just instructional leaders and coordinators, they became financial managers, human resource managers and everything. So, they had a whole professionalization of school management. And I was taught that’s a global movement, but not in Iceland. In Iceland, it’s still not a requirement to have this hardcore qualification as a school director. That was a surprise in Iceland. The other thing that was a surprise -well, not such a surprise. I knew it also from other Scandinavian countries, or Nordic countries like Finland; this proliferation of standardized testing did not take place, or this accountability. So, they bought into autonomy, but it meant something different in Iceland. And this is what we always say in policy borrowing research -it’s all about reception and translation, trying to understand, why does a global reform resonate, and how is it translated in that context? So, the translation of autonomy in Iceland meant to cater to students individual needs and motivations, because especially in upper secondary school, they had the issue of student dropout. So, having autonomy in having their own curriculum was like a big step forward. They used to have it. There was a pendulum that went back and forth. But the 2008 reform was really about reinstating that autonomy that they had had before.

Will Brehm  19:09
How do we think about why a country might take up a certain policy or not, or a particular version of a policy? You mentioned 2008. On the one hand, I keep thinking about domestic politics, and if different governments get into power at different times. But I also think maybe, of like the external factors of the economy, if there’s economic crises or shocks that might then trigger a government to act a certain way. So, when you start looking at these different cases and how policies are received, and the reception in that country, what can we think about the sort of, I don’t know, the pace or the tempo of some of these uptakes of the policy?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  19:46
I mean, politics is really important, and power is important. So at the time when NPM spread, it was a time of conservative governments. It was a time where the political parties were in power that believed. In the small state is a good state, and it was a top down reform from ministries of finance, as I said, to line ministries. And it started to spread when high income countries such as started with Australia, New Zealand, UK, US bought into it, and then all the OECD countries, once you have these early adopters, and they come from high income countries, they it started to spread like wildfire to the rest of the countries, however, and this is this fantastic database that I discovered and inspired this line of work. It’s the database that Patricia Bromley from Stanford and Riya Kojima put together with their doctoral students and students they collected, I think by now it’s from 215 countries, all the reforms that were passed legislation, of course, only from 1970 to 2022, I think it’s the last so over 10,000 documents. They put it in a database. They categorized it by keywords, they summarized every document. It’s publicly available. It’s called World Education Reform database. So it’s, I think, an amazing database. It is a huge service they did to humanity and to the intellectual community and Patricia Bromley and RIA Kojima and their associates, they show very nicely the reform frequency. The period of reform frequency was really high between, I believe, 1997 and 2008 this is when a lot of OECD countries, in particular, implemented Sava. Now, when you look at the country level, and this is unlike a qualitative comparitivist, when you look at the country level, at what moment do policy makers adopt a global reform, it becomes a question of timing, what happens in that particular moment that there is a receptiveness to global reform? We call this in comparative Policy Studies, externalization. And this goes back to a concept of 1990 that Sri were using a lumenian approach. Well, lumen is not nothing for beginners. It’s like difficult to read, but I tried to translate it and actually water it down, I would say, proudly, so we all understand. But basically, what it means is, at some particular moment, there is, like a policy conflict. You know, interest groups cannot agree something at that moment. This is a window for policy makers to make a reference to OECD, to the World Bank, to the Council of Europe, to Samuel, what have you, or to other education system and to depoliticize the policy process. It is a it is a form of depolitization, externalization, because you make an argument that is quasi scientific, look at the lessons and best practices. So all this reference to standards and best practices is a depolitization process and the coalition building process at the end of the day. So it’s very important to look, you know, Patricia Bromley and the new institutions. They look at this diffusion of reforms, and they have all these dots. And when you add it up, it really shows, wow. Between 1997 and 2008 so many countries adopted their reform. The only difference, and it’s complementary. It’s not contradictory, but complementary. Approach, a system theorist would look at the dots and look at the name of that country. Why did that country adopt Sava in this year and not in that year? And that’s the only difference.

Will Brehm  24:01
Yeah. And you know, you use the metaphor of a wildfire and it just spread. And so, from a macro view, yes, you could say the wildfire spread, but you’re sort of interested in why it spread, where, when, and you wanted to unpack the timing issue, right? So, it is complementary. And having spoken to Patricia and read that research and looked at that database, it’s so fascinating what they’ve done, and I think you are building on it in really important ways. And so, you know, one of the things you said earlier was that the SAWA reform package has more or less been completed, and now it’s a good time to sort of analyze it -the 40-50 years of it. I just want to know, how do we know that the SAWA reform is, you know, finished? Are we into some new phase now? Some new reform package?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  24:48
You know, in public policy studies -I’m like in between education and policy studies, because I see myself as a policy person. In public policy research, they moved on to e-government. And in e-government, they are actually looking back at the NPM and say how wrong this was. At one point, New Zealand created 27 agencies affiliated with the government because it was all about breaking down government structures into smaller units. It was a mess. It was a mess in many countries. It did not save cost. Outsourcing does not save costs. It’s just shifting the money to the private sector. It was a huge transaction cost to monitor, to contracting out and all of this. But what happened is -and this is where the STS colleagues come in (Science Technology Studies). Technology allows e-government, but it also produces e-government. It allows data collection, but it also produces data collection. So, governments are sitting on tons of data about individuals, people are worried about what they do with that data. The datafication, also in education -and I think especially Australian colleagues, are very strong on that, Bob Lingard and [Ann Hogan and Sam sailor?] -they write about datafication in education. And of course, PISA contributed to it. But the reason why it’s important to look at sequences; the following reform justifies its existence by looking back at the previous reform and says what the previous reform did not accomplish. So, there is a logic to the different sequences of public administration reform. So, the e-government is a logical continuation of the datafication that started with the interventionist states under Clinton and Blair and then Brown with the Barbara -we know Barbara in education with [deliberology?]. So, it is a logical consequence of governance by numbers, but it is the citizen that talks back. So, [Matej Paolo Mate?] from Milan -a scholar in Public Policy and Governance- she talks about the engaged state. Some people call it the engaged state, others call it the hollow state, but it’s a state that has a lot of data on citizens, and the state depends on the public opinion of people, because people all the time like fill out their feedback. So, it is a state where there’s a direct interaction with the citizen. It’s a new model of the state. It’s not a steering at the distance governance by numbers. It is a direct interaction, I would say, thanks to technology or because of technology. So, it is a new phase. We are in a new phase. So, the focus that we have now with foundational learning and numeracy and literacy, this is not a new conglomerate we have in education. World Bank, FCDO, Lego Foundation, Gates Foundation, OECD, they’re all into foundational learning. You know, my colleague, Hugh McLean, there is a great [NORRAG?] special issue on that topic. They would say they were into foundational learning even in the preparation of 2015. They just allowed for the laundry list to happen for the SDGs but they only put money into foundational learning. They only put measurement into foundational learning, etc. But nevertheless, it became bigger and bigger, and the focus on numeracy and literacy – I forgot USAID as one of the big players there.

Will Brehm  28:34
So, the foundational literacy and numeracy. I like this notion of the e-government and the engaged state. And so, we’re beginning to see a very different bundle of education reform policies. Is it possible to date when sort of SAWA begins to disappear or end, let’s say?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  28:53
There were databases in 2008 right after the economic crisis. I call it reform inertia started in 2008. And you know, we’re working closely together, [Patricia Bromley, kiri Kijima, Toni verger, and Kirsty Martins?], we talk a lot about that issue. And one of the things I brought up with [Tricia Bromley and RIA Kojima?], is from a diffusion of innovation research, the reason why we see a drop in adoption of policies, because [we had collected?] all the policies that were passed, laws, amendment to laws and regulations, mostly. The reason why there is a drop is maybe there is a saturation, you know, from a diffusion of innovation research like the lazy S curve that we always show. Maybe the reason why the reform frequency drops is because it’s saturated. Because everyone already implemented SAWA and now moves on. I mean, this is what in policy studies, we call a punctuated equilibrium theory, and this goes back way to [Olson, and Baumgartner, and Jones and True now?], when you look back at reforms for 50 years, you see periods of reform intensity or high reform frequency, and then areas of reform inertia, where not much is happening in terms of legislation. But that does not mean that other policy instruments are being used. You know what I mean? So, we have a discussion trying to explain what happened after 2008 because it’s completely naive to believe that there is not much going on. I mean, [a Friday for future?], environmental movements, the datafication has really taken on a big scale but maybe not in terms of passing new legislation because it’s saturated. So, we are not sure how to interpret that, but we are having a discussion on that right now.

Will Brehm  31:07
So, something goes on with the global financial crisis, we see this policy inertia take hold but still, SAWA is around, and slowly the datafication of education sort of begins to move us towards this e-government, or engaged state. We see a qualitative shift happening more recently, more or less.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  31:29
But you know, and this is the other dimension of the temporal dimension is the lifespan -I call it lifespan because what the [veer?] database measures, or what a policy document or a law measures is an adoption of the law. But hey, maybe after five years it is reversed, or it is, you know, eclipsed, or there is a sunset law, or whatever you know, so what it measures [WEER?] and when you only look at policy documents, it looks at the spread of reforms, and this it measures beautifully. But it doesn’t measure whether it sticks. And this is the piece that [Kolivas?] and her colleagues, they wrote about. They make a differentiation between what spreads and what sticks. And that’s a good differentiation to make. So, what sticks is, you know, what is getting institutionalized? And we are not talking about institutionalist theory. It can be conversion, it can be drift, it can be a hybrid form, etc, but it’s incremental in any case. But sometimes, you know some, for instance, just as an example, performance-based payment was a big part of neoliberal reform, conservative reform. It did not stay thank God, because the unions were adamantly opposed. But others, change brought a change in value. So, for instance, standardized testing. I noticed, like in the Swiss context, that’s my other home, my other country, parents and students love standardized tests. And they buy, you know, download apps, they download exams, because that’s a way of -we would call it back then, intrinsic motivation. It shows that the student is in charge of their own learning progress, and it’s a new value that is being instilled in students and parents, that it’s their responsibility to learn. It’s formative. It’s a huge, huge industry, the testing industry. Of course, we can say it started with SAWA, and it started with PISA, more than with TIMMS and other IEA instruments, but by now it has become a value. It’s a norm, and it’s there to stay. So, once you have a norm, it’s going to stay for a while, at least. And also, once you have a profession, it’s going to stay. So, what we are having as part of SAWA, we have this culture of collecting year after year reports, and nobody looks at the reports. Schools are filling out paperwork at nausea. We have external evaluations, it has become a ritual, a ceremony, and we have a whole army of external evaluators, of consultants, very expensive, and it’s there, but it has lost the function and purpose, and again, because, thank God, schools stood up against these harsh accountability measures, where they are being put like a slide in a slideshow to be looked at. And in many countries, not in Australia, but in many countries, they oppose to publicize test results and all. So, some things stay on the books and they get institutionalized. Like, for instance, school management, professionalization, school management or standardized testing but they get repurposed sometimes. And some of the things stay on the books, but they age, they hollow out. [Michel Morais?], my co-editor in the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, she and [Osmani Porto di Olivera?], they created that term, the hollowing out of policy. They stay there, but they become meaningless. They become like zombies, almost, you know.

Will Brehm  35:29
Yeah. So, hence why this temporal dimension is so incredibly important when we think about sort of education reform and policy analysis. So, I guess you know, thinking about the sort of reform package of SAWA, and seeing that we’re beginning to enter into some new phase and really taking this temporal dimension seriously, I guess, as a final question, what are we looking at, or what are you looking at going forward, right? Are you taking your time to analyze the SAWA reform as sort of this historical artifact that you now want to unpack and understand more? Are you looking at the sort of the rise of some new educational reform package and trying to understand how that takes shape over time? Like, how do you see the future here?

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  36:11
To do serious research, you have to wait until something is over to look back. So, we are right now in the midst of the datafication phase and the hollow state, or the engaged state, depending on which author you take. But we can see contours of datafication but we are writing about that topic of datafication, and part of it is a logical consequence of the previous reforms. But there are also new elements that, because of technology, things have shifted in a different direction. But it’s too early to make authoritative judgments about the current reform, because if we are in the midst of it.

Will Brehm  36:52
Well, Gita Steiner-Khamsi, thank you so much for joining FreshEd again. It’s always a pleasure to talk.

Gita Steiner-Khamsi  36:57
It was really amazing and wonderful to talk to you as always, Will.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Related Guest Publications/Projects

The global reform packages in education: Variations and changes over time

The school autonomy-with-accountability reform in Iceland

Evidence and expertise in Nordic education policy

The emerging global education industry

What policymakers do with PISA

Neoliberalism liberally applied: Educational policy borrowing in Central Asia

Mentioned

Reforming governance through policy instruments

School accountability, autonomy, choice and the level of student achievement –  OECD

Governance by numbers: The rise of data in education

School autonomy and accountability

Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state – Peter Hall

World expansion of mass education, 1870-1980

Global reconstruction of educational attainment, 1950-2015

Average years of schooling

China’s move to mass higher education since 1998:

Public schools: Make them private – Milton Friedman

The Political Economy of Education – Martin Carnoy

Datafication of education

Nordic Public Management (NPM) reforms seen from the top: Adaptive and agile governments

Global transformation toward testing for accountability

School reform in the 1980s: The new right’s legacy

Autonomy in education: Theoretical and empirical approaches to a contested concept

Constructing school autonomy with accountability as a global policy model

World Education Reform Database

The “trickle down” myth

E-Government – The inclusive way for the future of digital citizenship

NORRAG special issue on foundational learning

Global determinants of education reform, 1960 to 2017

Punctuated Equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking

The fridays for future phenomenon

Recommended

Paths to educational reform

Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach

The design of reform packages under uncertainty

Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity

Education in the 1980s: World Bank perspectives-The myth and reality

The consequences of global educational expansion

The global transformation toward testing for accountability

From trickle down to inclusiveness

Toward a national assessment policy in Switzerland

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com