1. Founded in 1961, OECD is an intergovernmental institution with considerable influence on its member countries. Within the OECD framework, education has been increasingly growing in relevance; it acquired a central role in debates around the competitiveness of national economies—framed within an understanding of human capital and the emergence of the knowledge‐based economy. OECD does not provide prescriptive mandates for its member countries. Instead, it works through the building of consensus.

2. OECD focused on two areas at the end of the 1990s: assessment of how schools work; and external assessment of learning.

3. The PISA studies aim to measure 15‐year‐olds’ ability to face the challenges of real life. The project is conducted in 3‐year cycles: the first data collection took place in 2000 and the main area of assessment was reading literacy. Motivation, attitudes towards learning, familiarity with computers, and pupils’ ability to manage and monitor their own learning were also assessed. PISA 2003 looked more closely at mathematical literacy and problem‐solving skills; PISA 2006 focused on scientific literacy.

4. In particular, the Indicators of Educational Systems (INES) project, undertaken by OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). CERI is understood to be a globalizing agency playing a decisive role as an international knowledge mediator in shaping understanding about education (Henry et al. 2001 Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F. and Taylor, S. 2001. The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy, Amsterdam, , The Netherlands: International Association of Universities Press.  [Google Scholar]; for INES, see US Department of Education n.d).

5. This relationship between national education policies and the initiatives of international organizations, assuming a character of legitimization and mandate, may be illustrated by what occurred in Portugal between the post‐war period and the integration into the European Economic Community (Teodoro 2001 Teodoro, A. 2001. A Construção Política da Educação. Estado, Mudança Social e Políticas Educativas no Portugal Contemporâneo [The political construction of education: State, social change and educational policies in contemporary Portugal], Oporto, , Portugal: Edições Afrontamento.  [Google Scholar]).

6. According to Santos (1995 Santos, B. S. 1995. Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition, New York: Routledge.  [Google Scholar], 1997 Santos, B. S. 1997. Por uma Concepção Multicultural dos Direitos Humanos [For a multicultural conception of human rights]. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 48: 11–32.  [Google Scholar]), we should use the term ‘globalizations’ rather than the singular form. We can distinguish four modes of production of globalization: two of the modes are mainly hegemonic and achieved through top‐down imposition—’globalized localism’ and ‘localized globalism’, and the two other are counter‐hegemonic and emerge through down‐top mechanisms—’cosmopolitanism’ and ‘common heritage of humankind’.

7. See Cox and Sinclair (1996 Cox, R. W. and Sinclair, T. J. 1996. Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Hettne (1995 Hettne, B., ed. 1995. International Political Economy: Understanding Global Disorder, London: Zed Press.  [Google Scholar]), and Mittelman (1996 Mittelman, J. H., ed. 1996. Globalization: Critical Reflections, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reine.  [Google Scholar]).

8. According to Dale (2001 Dale, R. 2001. Globalização e Educação: Demonstrando a Existência de uma Cultura Educacional Mundial Comum ou Localizando uma ‘Agenda Globalmente Estruturada’ para a Educação? [Globalization and education: demonstrating the existence of a world common educational culture or locating a ‘global structured agenda’ to education?]. Educação, Sociedade and Culturas, 16: 133–169.  [Google Scholar]: 146–147), globalization is made up of three interlinked classes of activity: economic, political, and cultural activities, characterized by ‘hyper‐liberalism, governance without government, and marketization and consumerism, respectively’.

9. Santos (2001 Santos, B. S. 2001. “Os Processos da Globalização [Globalization processes]”. In Globalização. Fatalidade ou Utopia? [Globalization: Fatality and utopia?], Edited by: Santos, B. S. 31–106. Oporto, , Portugal: Edições Afrontamento. Available online at: http://www.4shared.com/file/76212871/d41b098f/SANTOS__org__Globalizao_Fatalidade_ou_Utopia.html, accessed 27 February 2010 [Google Scholar]) distinguishes two types of globalization intensity: ‘high‐’ and ‘low‐intensity’ globalization. Where the mediation of nation‐states is required for the formulation of, e.g. education policies, we may identify a ‘low‐intensity globalization’. In other areas, such as finance, international trade, or tourism, where nation‐states have practically abandoned their regulatory functions, we have ‘high‐intensity globalization’.

10. The EU area of intervention was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Aimed at supporting and contributing to the development of the actions of member‐states, they maintained full responsibility for the organization and curricula of their education systems. However, the conditions were created to increase the future scope of action of the EU, which occurred in 2000 with the so‐called ‘Lisbon Strategy’.

11. The software industry has become one of the main new educational actors; see, e.g. the Negroponte Project, ‘One Laptop per Child’ (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/The_OLPC_Wiki, accessed 25 February 2010) and the Magalhães Project in Venezuela and Portugal (http://www.portatilmagalhaes.com, accessed 25 February 2010).

12. See Aníbal (2007 Aníbal, G. 2007. Percursos de Governação das Políticas Educativas Nacionais em Portugal. Gestão e Investimento no Sistema Educativo [Governance routes of the national education policies in Portugal: Management and investment in the educational system], Lisbon: ULHT. Written within the context of the research project ‘Educating the global citizen: Educational reform and the politics of equity and inclusion’ [Google Scholar]).

13. And the education policies of other countries which participate in some of the surveys.

14. Their formulation and design have undergone several changes, namely with respect to the indicators used in the project Education at a Glance.

15. See Mendes and Galego (2009 Mendes, M. and Galego, C. 2009. “La regulación transnacional de las politicas educativas. El papel de los indicadores de comparación internacional en la construcción de una agenda global de educación [Transnational regulation of educational policies: The role of international comparative indicators in the construction of a global agenda for education]”. In Espejo Y Reflexo: Políticas Curriculares y Evaluaciones Internacionales [Mirror and reflex: Curriculum policies and international assessment], Edited by: Teodoro, A. and Montané, A. 23–58. Valencia, , Spain: Germania Editors.  [Google Scholar]).

16. Although all these areas were included in the three data collections, one was privileged each time.

17. These policies were not only addressed to the member states of the EU but also to the candidate states which at that time had not been integrated into the EU.

18. During the Barcelona Summit, the working group on the ‘key competences’ for the 21st century proposed reducing the range of hypotheses for the number of competences to be defined, understanding these competences to be interlinked with knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

19. These benchmarks were reformulated in May 2003 but only a few amendments to the earlier targets were made. See Council of the European Union (2003 Council of the European Union. 2003. Council conclusions of 5 May 2003 on reference levels of European average performance in education and training (Benchmarks) 8981/03/EDUC 83, Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/after-council-meeting_en.pdf, accessed 4 February 2010 [Google Scholar]).

20. Lyotard (2006 Lyotard, J.‐F. 2006. A Condição Pós‐Moderna [The postmodern condition], Edited by: Barbosa, R. C. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio Editora.  [Google Scholar]: 93) defines ‘optimization of performances‘ as a search for a ‘better relation between input/output’, allowing for an opening up of a ‘large market of operative competences’.

21. The reduction of the number of teachers in the non‐compulsory curriculum areas in years 7–9 of compulsory schooling, the establishment of time allocations for the primary school curricular areas, and the creation of guidelines for pre‐school education programmes of study as well as for non‐compulsory curricular areas.

22. See e.g. Education and Training 2010, an EU Project (Commission of the European Communities 2001 Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Report from the Committee: Concrete Future Objectives of Education Systems COM (2001) 59 Final, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2001&nu_doc=59, accessed 2 February 2010 [Google Scholar], Council of the European Union 2001 Council of the European Union. 2001. The Concrete Future Objectives of Education and Training Systems: Report from the Education Council to the European Council. Report No. 52001DC0059, Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available online at: http://eur-ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/rep_fut_obj_en.pdf, accessed 20 November 2009 [Google Scholar]).

23. Benavente et al. (1996 Benavente, A., Rosa, A., Da Costa, A. F. and Avila, P. 1996. A Literacia em Portugal [Literacy in Portugal], Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.  [Google Scholar]) was based on this study.

24. See Elley (1992 Elley, W. B., ed. 1992. How in the World do Students Read? IEA Study of Reading Literacy, Hamburg, , Germany: Grindeldruck GMBH. ERIC ED 360–613 [Google Scholar]).

25. See Ministério da Educação (1997 Ministério da Educação. 1997. Projecto de Reflexão Participada sobre Currículo do Ensino Básico [Project of reflection on the curriculum of elementary schooling], Lisbon: DEB.  [Google Scholar]).

26. See Ministério da Educação (1998 Ministério da Educação. 1998. A Unidade da Educação Básica em Análise [Analysis of the unity of basic education], Lisbon: DEB.  [Google Scholar]).

27. In fact, multicultural classrooms and teachers’ difficulty in managing them, the content‐based curriculum being used, poor curricular implementation, and the concept of the teacher as a curriculum ‘consumer’ are some of the explanations these reports give to justify the low scores reported by the literacy studies.

28. The Portuguese Minister of Education stated in an interview the Portuguese public television channel RTP1 that the OECD’s 2007 Education at a Glance showed that the Portuguese education system was very closed and did not promote social mobility, thus, there was the need to include secondary education pupils (years 14–18) in the existent social benefits scheme (3rd September 2007).

29. Centres for the Recognition, Validation and Certification of Competences were created by legislation in which explicit reference is made to the Lisbon European Council’s conclusions and the considerations around life‐long learning.

30. For an example, see the ‘Projecto Nacional de Educação para o Empreendedorismo’ [National project of education for entrepreneurship], launched in 2007, or the contest ‘A União Europeia e a Não Discriminação’ [The European Union and non‐discrimination], initiated 22nd October 2007, both promoted by the Ministry of Education.