Page 18 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 18
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
a—problematic—measurement of success. We are told that, “in a global
economy, success is no longer measured against national standards alone,
but against the best-performing and most rapidly improving education
systems”. Here, again, a concealing strategy is at work. By such a strategy
the reader is pushed to believe the following: a) a “global economy” is an
all-encompassing concept, one that can and must ground any and every
educational framework; additionally, in OECD’s language and ideology
the concept of “global economy” is a totalizing one, namely, it stands for
the world in all of its features—I will return to this in the second sec-
tion. In this way both the reduction of living to economy and of educa-
tion to neoliberal dictate is silently accomplished; b) success is the driv-
en value of such a world. With respect to this, it should be noted that not
just success is a problematic educational category, for in the end one could
ask success in and for what; success, additionally, is also an indeterminate
concept, one that, in a sense, may be filled up with anything. Otherwise
stated, OECD should specify what success means in its educational per-
spective; and c) despite such an indeterminateness of what success means
and entails, we are pushed to believe that the factors conducive to success
can be clearly measured and evaluated. In this way PISA, as the best tool
for measuring educational success, becomes an indispensable product at
any level of education and schooling.
OECD, then, puts in place a rhetorical mechanism in which too
much is taken for granted. This leads to a situation in which PISA is nei-
ther only an international survey nor an assessment tool amongst other
assessment tools. Through OECD’s words, we are pushed to believe that
PISA mirrors an indisputable reality: the whole argument is presented as
evidence. Here, it should be noted that the term “evidence” has a twofold
meaning: on the one hand, the term refers to the evidence-based paradigm
as the alleged gold standard for both educational assessment and scientif-
ic research; on the other hand, evidence is understood as the—ground-
ed—reason for believing that something is true. Then, we may see that
the technical and the common meaning of the term evidence reinforce
one another, thus creating a kind of loop by which the reader is pushed to
believe that the affirmations being made cannot be questioned—as Angel
Gurrìa, the OECD Secretary General, would say, they are a kind of “mir-
ror” of reality (Gurrìa, 2016a). OECD’s rhetorical strategy equates its own
vision to the vision stemming from all countries committed to educating
their girls and boys.
To close the loop, in the final sentence of the passage we encounter
PISA’s colonialist stance (d’Agnese, 2015, 2017). Here, in fact, we read that,
“PISA allows governments and educators to identify effective policies that
16
a—problematic—measurement of success. We are told that, “in a global
economy, success is no longer measured against national standards alone,
but against the best-performing and most rapidly improving education
systems”. Here, again, a concealing strategy is at work. By such a strategy
the reader is pushed to believe the following: a) a “global economy” is an
all-encompassing concept, one that can and must ground any and every
educational framework; additionally, in OECD’s language and ideology
the concept of “global economy” is a totalizing one, namely, it stands for
the world in all of its features—I will return to this in the second sec-
tion. In this way both the reduction of living to economy and of educa-
tion to neoliberal dictate is silently accomplished; b) success is the driv-
en value of such a world. With respect to this, it should be noted that not
just success is a problematic educational category, for in the end one could
ask success in and for what; success, additionally, is also an indeterminate
concept, one that, in a sense, may be filled up with anything. Otherwise
stated, OECD should specify what success means in its educational per-
spective; and c) despite such an indeterminateness of what success means
and entails, we are pushed to believe that the factors conducive to success
can be clearly measured and evaluated. In this way PISA, as the best tool
for measuring educational success, becomes an indispensable product at
any level of education and schooling.
OECD, then, puts in place a rhetorical mechanism in which too
much is taken for granted. This leads to a situation in which PISA is nei-
ther only an international survey nor an assessment tool amongst other
assessment tools. Through OECD’s words, we are pushed to believe that
PISA mirrors an indisputable reality: the whole argument is presented as
evidence. Here, it should be noted that the term “evidence” has a twofold
meaning: on the one hand, the term refers to the evidence-based paradigm
as the alleged gold standard for both educational assessment and scientif-
ic research; on the other hand, evidence is understood as the—ground-
ed—reason for believing that something is true. Then, we may see that
the technical and the common meaning of the term evidence reinforce
one another, thus creating a kind of loop by which the reader is pushed to
believe that the affirmations being made cannot be questioned—as Angel
Gurrìa, the OECD Secretary General, would say, they are a kind of “mir-
ror” of reality (Gurrìa, 2016a). OECD’s rhetorical strategy equates its own
vision to the vision stemming from all countries committed to educating
their girls and boys.
To close the loop, in the final sentence of the passage we encounter
PISA’s colonialist stance (d’Agnese, 2015, 2017). Here, in fact, we read that,
“PISA allows governments and educators to identify effective policies that
16
