Page 17 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 17
v. d’agnese ■ concealment and advertising: unraveling ...
[M]ore and more countries are looking beyond their own borders for
evidence of the most successful and efficient policies and practices.
Indeed, in a global economy, success is no longer measured against na-
tional standards alone, but against the best-performing and most rapidly
improving education systems. Over the past decade, the OECD Pro-
gramme for International Student Assessment, PISA, has become the
world’s premier yardstick for evaluating the quality, equity and efficiency
of school systems. But the evidence base that PISA has produced goes
well beyond statistical benchmarking. By identifying the characteristics
of high-performing education systems PISA allows governments and
educators to identify effective policies that they can then adapt to their
local contexts. (OECD, 2013: p. 3)
This statement, I argue, is a significant example of OECD’s rheto-
ric. Several assumptions are included in this passage, and the statement it-
self, despite its plain and reassuring language, is anything but neutral and
innocent. A powerful direction situates education in a well-defined val-
ue square of money, success, evidence and competition—notice, the hall-
marks of neoliberalism. Moreover: as stated above, such a well-defined
square is not presented as a peculiar—and legitimate—perspective of the
Organization. Rather, it is presented as a neutral, unique and unavoidable
reality embracing educational systems worldwide.
The question of evidence and evidence-based education is intro-
duced in the first statement of the passage. Here, we may note that evi-
dence itself is not questioned: it is a given. It is a given in two ways: on the
one hand, it is implicitly assumed that only evidence-based data may pro-
vide meaningful information about educational systems—hardly, in fact,
in OECD’s educational framework may we find trace of diverse assess-
ment models.2 On the other hand, it is assumed that, within the range
of evidence-based tools for assessing skills and competencies, PISA is the
best one. Thus, as we may note, both questionable assumptions are taken
for granted without arguing further. Moreover: as stated above, the need
for evidence is not a specific purpose of the Organization. Rather, it aris-
es from “more and more countries” around the world independently of
OECD.
In the second statement of the passage, OECD introduc-
es the two guidelines through which education must be conceived
of: an economics and performance-based vision of education, and a
strong commitment to “success” and measurement, or, better said, to
2 For more on the relationship between evidence-based epractice and neoleberal education-
al agenda see Au, 2011; Biesta, 2010; Hursh, 2008; Shahjahan 2011.
15
[M]ore and more countries are looking beyond their own borders for
evidence of the most successful and efficient policies and practices.
Indeed, in a global economy, success is no longer measured against na-
tional standards alone, but against the best-performing and most rapidly
improving education systems. Over the past decade, the OECD Pro-
gramme for International Student Assessment, PISA, has become the
world’s premier yardstick for evaluating the quality, equity and efficiency
of school systems. But the evidence base that PISA has produced goes
well beyond statistical benchmarking. By identifying the characteristics
of high-performing education systems PISA allows governments and
educators to identify effective policies that they can then adapt to their
local contexts. (OECD, 2013: p. 3)
This statement, I argue, is a significant example of OECD’s rheto-
ric. Several assumptions are included in this passage, and the statement it-
self, despite its plain and reassuring language, is anything but neutral and
innocent. A powerful direction situates education in a well-defined val-
ue square of money, success, evidence and competition—notice, the hall-
marks of neoliberalism. Moreover: as stated above, such a well-defined
square is not presented as a peculiar—and legitimate—perspective of the
Organization. Rather, it is presented as a neutral, unique and unavoidable
reality embracing educational systems worldwide.
The question of evidence and evidence-based education is intro-
duced in the first statement of the passage. Here, we may note that evi-
dence itself is not questioned: it is a given. It is a given in two ways: on the
one hand, it is implicitly assumed that only evidence-based data may pro-
vide meaningful information about educational systems—hardly, in fact,
in OECD’s educational framework may we find trace of diverse assess-
ment models.2 On the other hand, it is assumed that, within the range
of evidence-based tools for assessing skills and competencies, PISA is the
best one. Thus, as we may note, both questionable assumptions are taken
for granted without arguing further. Moreover: as stated above, the need
for evidence is not a specific purpose of the Organization. Rather, it aris-
es from “more and more countries” around the world independently of
OECD.
In the second statement of the passage, OECD introduc-
es the two guidelines through which education must be conceived
of: an economics and performance-based vision of education, and a
strong commitment to “success” and measurement, or, better said, to
2 For more on the relationship between evidence-based epractice and neoleberal education-
al agenda see Au, 2011; Biesta, 2010; Hursh, 2008; Shahjahan 2011.
15
