**1. Introduction**

It is said that global agenda drives relationships with national and local contexts, and one example of that relationship was captured in the Global Education Reform Movements (GERM) of the 1980s and 1990s [1–4]. The GERM gained momentum across the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand [5, 6]. Seemingly, developing countries in the Pacific Islands were also influenced by the GERM influence [7, 8], and, Papua New Guinea (PNG) a Melanesian island country had no immunity to that influence [1, 9, 10].

Developments of Globalised Education Policies (GEP) such as the Universal Basic Education (UBE), Education For All (EFA), and Universal Primary Education (UPE) guided reforms for National Education Systems (NES) world over [1, 6]. Moreover, according to the literature, GEP placed emphasis on: Having a pre-determined education model/curricula to meet market oriented demands [4, 11, 12]. The GERM, arguably, was achieved world over when NES adopted a common education model (Outcomes-Based Education), and its subsequent Outcomes-Based Curricula (OBC) [1, 13–15]. The intentions were to improve educational performances and outcomes by using a universal framework advocating for quality education.

However, literature shows that reforming NES because of global policy mandates for implementation of a universal education model and curricula is not simple and straight forward [1, 11, 16]. Arguably, the process can be a highly complex one because of different factors and actors involved [2, 17]. Moreover, it is also stressed that trying to describe exactly where any reform agenda went according to global policy intentions could be problematic as, 'No one shoe size fits all' [3, 18]. Thus, there is an urgent need to document relationships of the GERM on local contexts, as Fullan [11] calls for more situated studies on global educational changes.

This Chapter hopes to answer the question: *'How has global educational policies influenced reform in a local context?*' This paper reports findings of research done on 'An Implementation process of a reform curriculum' in Papua New Guinea (PNG) [2], so as to illustrate the relationship of global education policies on a local context. Firstly, I will outline the theoretical lenses used; secondly, I will describe the global climate that drove the education reform. Thirdly, I will document how PNG embraced the GERM. Fourthly, I present the methodology used; then discuss two case studies' findings as results of GEP impacts on local contexts. Lastly, I will conclude by way of argument that the Global Education Reform Movement relationship with PNG was problematic, and not sustainable.

#### **2. Literature review**

This section discusses the theoretical lenses for understanding global education changes. Then it describes the climate driving global education reforms. Next it highlights processes of policy and implementation; and, last, gives descriptions of a scenario showing relationships between global agenda influencing local settings. The terms - 'Innovation', 'change' and 'reform', are used interchangeably here to refer to educational changes.

#### **3. Diffusion of innovation theory**

Rogers' [19] diffusion of innovation theory offers three broad stages for making sense of how global education policy can influence local contexts. They are: Initiation, Implementation and Continuation.

#### **3.1 The initiation phase**

The Initiation stage describes beginnings or diffusion of innovations/changes of something new like a reform agenda that will attempt to improve society. Changes may come from either external means (globally), or, internally from with systems or from both factors [5, 16]. If external donors drive reforms under development packages; timings and objectives could be constraints as projects have certain periods [14]. Thus, receivers of change need clarity from those initiating reforms from the onset; because, there could be sustainable issues, should subjective interpretations occur [20].

Decision makings here influence reform agendas [5]. Those dialogues can range from top-down, bottom-up, or from a combination of both approaches [21]; each has respective challenges and strengths. For example, in curricula reforms, priority considerations would need to go to: (a) Curriculum planning and policy statements, (b) Learning aims, and achievable strategies, (c) Project implementation (resources and staff development), and, (d) Classroom implementation (teaching and

evaluation skills) [16, 22]. Seemingly, Initiation stages have numerous tasks, and, can be overwhelming when going into Implementation stages.
