Page 117 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 117
. štremfel ■ european neoliberal discourse and slovenian educational space
not geographically bound but evolve in the communication between ac-
tors at different levels of EU governance. Discursive institutionalism en-
ables the better understanding of the actual practices through which EU
discourse is incorporated in national context by changing the beliefs and
expectations of national actors, including the change of preferences and
strategies (Alasuutari, 2015; Featherstone, 2003). Discursive institution-
alism therefore importantly contributes to an understanding of the com-
plex and interactive process of EU influence in the sensitive policy field,
where member states formally maintain sovereignty over their education-
al systems. Due to a lack of EU legal power, normative discourses are cen-
tral to govern the field of education in the EU. Discursive power is used to
persuade EU member states to coordinate their national policies and vol-
untary strive towards agreed performance (governance of goals and gov-
ernance of comparisons) and providing particular problematizations and
proposed solutions (governance of problems/crisis) (Lange and Alexiadou,
2010; Lawn, 2011; Nordin, 2014).
Alasuutari (2015) asks what the actual neoliberal discourses are and
how they are implemented in practice. Alexiadou (2016), Nordin (2014)
and Wahlström and Sundberg (2018) discussed concrete examples of ide-
as and discourses applied in EU neoliberal educational governance in the
following way. The Lisbon Summit (European Council, 2000) made up of
European educational actors formed a coordinative normative discourse
of common interests and similar worldviews. The paradigmatic principle
following on from these background ideas was mainly that EU member
states need to cooperate more closely to cope with global competition. The
underlying assumption was that rapid societal changes related to the con-
tinuous development of the knowledge-based economy highlighted the
need for people to be able to respond quickly to structural changes in their
working lives. Accordingly, each national education system must prepare
its students to be competitive in a global knowledge economy. The cog-
nitive policy solution to this problem became lifelong learning and the
key competencies concept (Wahlström and Sundberg, 2018). Through the
working programmes Education and Training 2010 and 2020 (Council
of the EU, 2002; 2009), these cognitive foregrounds of programmatic dis-
courses were shared with the member states through communicative dis-
course. In order to realize them at the EU level as a whole, the governance
architecture was built on the idea of governing member states, organisa-
tions and individuals to act consistently in accordance with the common
objectives (Nordin, 2014). Benchmarks and indicators (also based on data
of international comparative studies) have been introduced for monitor-
ing progress. The data from international comparative assessment studies
115
not geographically bound but evolve in the communication between ac-
tors at different levels of EU governance. Discursive institutionalism en-
ables the better understanding of the actual practices through which EU
discourse is incorporated in national context by changing the beliefs and
expectations of national actors, including the change of preferences and
strategies (Alasuutari, 2015; Featherstone, 2003). Discursive institution-
alism therefore importantly contributes to an understanding of the com-
plex and interactive process of EU influence in the sensitive policy field,
where member states formally maintain sovereignty over their education-
al systems. Due to a lack of EU legal power, normative discourses are cen-
tral to govern the field of education in the EU. Discursive power is used to
persuade EU member states to coordinate their national policies and vol-
untary strive towards agreed performance (governance of goals and gov-
ernance of comparisons) and providing particular problematizations and
proposed solutions (governance of problems/crisis) (Lange and Alexiadou,
2010; Lawn, 2011; Nordin, 2014).
Alasuutari (2015) asks what the actual neoliberal discourses are and
how they are implemented in practice. Alexiadou (2016), Nordin (2014)
and Wahlström and Sundberg (2018) discussed concrete examples of ide-
as and discourses applied in EU neoliberal educational governance in the
following way. The Lisbon Summit (European Council, 2000) made up of
European educational actors formed a coordinative normative discourse
of common interests and similar worldviews. The paradigmatic principle
following on from these background ideas was mainly that EU member
states need to cooperate more closely to cope with global competition. The
underlying assumption was that rapid societal changes related to the con-
tinuous development of the knowledge-based economy highlighted the
need for people to be able to respond quickly to structural changes in their
working lives. Accordingly, each national education system must prepare
its students to be competitive in a global knowledge economy. The cog-
nitive policy solution to this problem became lifelong learning and the
key competencies concept (Wahlström and Sundberg, 2018). Through the
working programmes Education and Training 2010 and 2020 (Council
of the EU, 2002; 2009), these cognitive foregrounds of programmatic dis-
courses were shared with the member states through communicative dis-
course. In order to realize them at the EU level as a whole, the governance
architecture was built on the idea of governing member states, organisa-
tions and individuals to act consistently in accordance with the common
objectives (Nordin, 2014). Benchmarks and indicators (also based on data
of international comparative studies) have been introduced for monitor-
ing progress. The data from international comparative assessment studies
115
