Page 112 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 112
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
neoliberal premises and, as an instrument, reflects the ideas and mecha-
nisms of the new public management. The EU is thus involved in the defi-
nition, structuring, monitoring, as well the evaluation of education and
through the use of “soft governance” tools such as goals, benchmarks, in-
dicators and international comparative achievement scales it coordinates
the thinking and acting of EU member states, institutions and individu-
als (Nordin, 2014: p. 115).4 In scientific debates, summarized below, EU
educational governance is presented as governance of goals, comparisons,
problems/crisis and knowledge.
Governance of Goals
Quantitative measurements of progress of commonly agreed goals have
become a central instrument for governing education in the EU and, at
the same time, an important part of the normative discourse communi-
cating what course of action is considered desirable and persuading the
actors to perform in a similar way. Indicators and benchmarks (also de-
veloped on the basis of the findings of international comparative assess-
ment studies) enable the assessment and comparison of the performance
of member states in achieving common EU goals (governance of goals).
Grek (2009) believes that within governance of goals, data and their man-
agement play a key role. Data enables governance through goal setting,
whereby participant output is directed towards achieving goals. Upon
publishing, these data serve as the instruments of encouragement and
judgement of participants in terms of their output. They thus simultane-
ously represent the control of context and the autonomy of the actors op-
erating within the context in relation to how they will achieve their goals.
This is a system of discipline based on the judgement and classification of
participants in achieving (jointly defined) goals.
Governance of Comparisons
Knowledge about member state performance in achieving commonly
agreed goals is almost always contextualised in relation to other systems.
Comparisons (commonly shown as an international spectacle of achieve-
ment or underachievement on comparative achievement scales) strength-
en participants’ mutual responsibility for achieving common goals, legit-
imise political actions and thus create a new mode of governance. They
mostly encompass a rationalistic approach to policy making, wherein (as-
sessed) participants are implicitly under pressure to arrive as close as pos-
sible to what is considered ‘the best’ in accordance with special criteria
4 Ball (2015) denotes such measurement and monitoring tools as preferred techniques with-
in the normative ideal of neoliberalism.
110
neoliberal premises and, as an instrument, reflects the ideas and mecha-
nisms of the new public management. The EU is thus involved in the defi-
nition, structuring, monitoring, as well the evaluation of education and
through the use of “soft governance” tools such as goals, benchmarks, in-
dicators and international comparative achievement scales it coordinates
the thinking and acting of EU member states, institutions and individu-
als (Nordin, 2014: p. 115).4 In scientific debates, summarized below, EU
educational governance is presented as governance of goals, comparisons,
problems/crisis and knowledge.
Governance of Goals
Quantitative measurements of progress of commonly agreed goals have
become a central instrument for governing education in the EU and, at
the same time, an important part of the normative discourse communi-
cating what course of action is considered desirable and persuading the
actors to perform in a similar way. Indicators and benchmarks (also de-
veloped on the basis of the findings of international comparative assess-
ment studies) enable the assessment and comparison of the performance
of member states in achieving common EU goals (governance of goals).
Grek (2009) believes that within governance of goals, data and their man-
agement play a key role. Data enables governance through goal setting,
whereby participant output is directed towards achieving goals. Upon
publishing, these data serve as the instruments of encouragement and
judgement of participants in terms of their output. They thus simultane-
ously represent the control of context and the autonomy of the actors op-
erating within the context in relation to how they will achieve their goals.
This is a system of discipline based on the judgement and classification of
participants in achieving (jointly defined) goals.
Governance of Comparisons
Knowledge about member state performance in achieving commonly
agreed goals is almost always contextualised in relation to other systems.
Comparisons (commonly shown as an international spectacle of achieve-
ment or underachievement on comparative achievement scales) strength-
en participants’ mutual responsibility for achieving common goals, legit-
imise political actions and thus create a new mode of governance. They
mostly encompass a rationalistic approach to policy making, wherein (as-
sessed) participants are implicitly under pressure to arrive as close as pos-
sible to what is considered ‘the best’ in accordance with special criteria
4 Ball (2015) denotes such measurement and monitoring tools as preferred techniques with-
in the normative ideal of neoliberalism.
110
